Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Swimming Pools

Chris Bryant: How many 50-metre swimming pools there are.

Richard Caborn: Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate all our Olympians, who performed incredibly well? We also send our best wishes to our competitors in the Paralympics, which starts next week.
	There are currently 20 50-metre swimming pools in the UK.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that all hon. Members congratulate our two Olympic swimming medallists, David Davies and Stephen Parry. It is unfair on our swimmers that only 20 50-metre pools exist in this country, when Germany has 92 and France has 90. Wales contains only one such pool and London has only two, despite the fact that Paris, another capital city, has 19. We should invest more in swimming and build more 50-metre pools, so that people who swim the 1,500 m do not have to do excessive numbers of tumble-turns.

Richard Caborn: Sport England is committed to eight new 50-metre pools. We currently have 3,648 swimming pools and 1,134 25-metre pools. Since 1995, one sixth of all lottery money, some £279 million, has been invested in swimming. I accept that we must do more for elite swimmers, and we are discussing facilities for our elite athletes with swimming's governing body, but swimming has received major investment in the recent past.

Hugo Swire: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Building more swimming pools up and down the country is surely to be encouraged, but it is not so much a question of size as a question of usage. The villagers of Membury in my constituency know that size is not everything: they have a community swimming pool, which the school uses, and they have an enormous problem with insurance. Last year, the premiums rocketed up, and cover cannot be obtained at all this year, so local people will not be able to use the pool. I contacted the Financial Secretary, who passed the matter on to the Home Office, from which I am yet to hear. Will the Minister indicate how public swimming pools owned by local communities can be insured, so that local people can use them?

Richard Caborn: I do not know the exact detail of the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but insurance for sport is a serious issue. In particular, extreme sports find that they cannot get instructors, who allow young people to participate in those sports, because they cannot get insurance. The Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the industry are examining the problem, and we have also discussed a private Member's Bill on the subject. The issue is being taken seriously, and it concerns not only swimming, but the whole spectrum of sport. If we do not get it right, it will be to the detriment of many young people who want to participate in sport.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if there are eight Sport England swimming pools, we will settle for one in Bolsover? We lost our baths because of subsidence, and, as he knows, we have being trying to replace them for a few years. We do not need a 50-metre pool—we will settle for less—and we will not worry his pretty head about insurance, because we will deal with that. He knows that a hiatus has occurred because of Sport England's refusal to obtain lottery money for us—all that money has gone to the City of London and elsewhere. Will he meet the people of Bolsover to get the show back on the road?

Richard Caborn: I have been called many things, but never "pretty". The hon. Gentleman knows that I have met Bolsover council, the strategic health authority and the primary care trust to try to find a funding mechanism for that major community facility. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue those discussions and will hopefully find a funding package for a swimming baths in his constituency, although I do not think that it will be a 50-metre pool.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister agree to have a close look at the conditions attached to lottery grants? In my constituency, we are about to open a brand new swimming pool, which we are delighted to have, paid for by lottery funding. Unfortunately, however, there are no 50-metre competition-sized pools in the whole of Greater London. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to have one in my constituency, but the strings attached to the lottery grant meant that the sum had to be dissipated on other ancillary provision; as a result, we must have a six-lane pool with the same water space as the old one. Has not a wonderful opportunity been lost; and would not it have been better to focus the entire funding on providing an eight-lane 50-metre pool?

Richard Caborn: If we are successful with the Olympics, London could have three 50-metre pools. Construction is already taking place on an aquatic centre where there will be one 50-metre pool; if we are successful with the Olympics, there will be two; and we are discussing with Crystal Palace a major refurbishment that could include a third.
	One has to be careful in relation to 50-metre pools. I have one in my own constituency which is used as a 50-metre pool for only a few hours every year because it is split into three community pools by moving booms and lifting the floors. A few very important elite athletes need access to 50-metre pools. We are discussing with the Swimming Association how we can bring the elite together, as we have done in many other sports. Kelly Holmes is a classic example. She will put her success in gaining silver in Paris and gold in Athens down to the training and physiotherapy that she received at the English Institute of Sport. We have to bring the centres of excellence together. We are doing that through the new funding arrangements and by liaising with the governing bodies and providing facilities. We need to reflect on how 50-metre pools are used by the community and by the elite.

Hugh Robertson: I am sure that we all share the shadow Minister's enthusiasm for swimming—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean the Minister's enthusiasm: it is easy to tell it is my first day. However, will he undertake to review the decision taken by two Government bodies—the Institute of Sport and Recreation Management and the Health and Safety Executive—to ban women from taking more than two children under the age of eight into a swimming pool at any one time? Its introduction on 1 May this year, at the start of summer, could not have been worse timed. It deprives young families of vital bonding time and means that young children cannot take the very type of exercise that the Government are encouraging.

Richard Caborn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the post of shadow Minister for Sport and congratulate him on his question—because the answer to it is not in my briefing notes.
	I do have concerns about that recommendation—it was only a recommendation, not a statute. It has to be dealt with using common sense. On the one hand we must consider the effects on insurance policies and try to protect young people, but on the other we want to ensure that bonding in our swimming facilities is maximised. I think that the recommendation came from the right motives. A lot of pressure has been put on those bodies to consider the whole question of safety, and they are taking into account the best interests of the children. We will revisit their decision, however, because if it is imposed rigorously it could be counterproductive.

BBC Charter

Harold Best: What principles will guide the Government in their review of the BBC charter.

Tessa Jowell: The principle guiding the review of the BBC charter is that the outcome will be a strong BBC, independent of Government. The review process is thorough and extensive. We have already undertaken large-scale consultations with industry and the public, and the process will continue to be characterised by vigorous and open debate.

Harold Best: I am delighted to hear the Minister use the words "independent" and "vigorous", because that is exactly what we need from a public service broadcasting body. Will we get a guarantee that that means that there will be no commercially funded element that may make the BBC dependent on commercial interests?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He probably knows that the BBC is currently undertaking a review of its commercial services and is bound by strict fair trade rules. The governors are obliged to ensure that they are complied with. My hon. Friend's question will be addressed in the course of charter review. The BBC have already pre-empted that to some extent by taking steps to review the role and extent of commercial services.

Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to a strong and independent BBC. However, does she acknowledge that one of the functions of independence is political neutrality? What steps will she take to ensure that, in the run-up to the by-election in Hartlepool, during which the Labour party conference will be taking place, there is equal coverage of all the parties—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the renewal of the charter.

Derek Wyatt: Does the Secretary of State agree that in 2017, we shall still have a national health service, primary schools and secondary schools and a BBC? Given that we are considering switching from analogue to digital by 2012, is there any sense in having a charter? If so, is there any sense in having it for 10 more years?

Tessa Jowell: That is an important question, which is, in a sense, most relevant during the current charter review because we expect the switch-off of the analogue signal during the period that the next charter covers. A further 10-year charter is likely, but not certain. The independent panel, under the chairmanship of Lord Burns, which is advising me on charter review is considering the matter specifically.

Simon Thomas: What is the Secretary of State's vision of that digital future? Does she agree with the BBC's statement of values for the charter when it states that it wants everyone in the United Kingdom to have equal access to digital services? How will she achieve that? There are worrying stories that she has abandoned SwitchCo and the source of money that is necessary to achieve the digital switch-over. Which parts of the UK will go first and which will go last?

Tessa Jowell: With great respect, that question was nonsense. There is no question of abandoning SwitchCo or walking away from the money. The broadcasters are considering the timetable and costs of converting the transmission network from analogue to digital. The Government are clear that digital switch-over will take place on a basis that guarantees universal access to people who currently receive analogue. We expect the principal technology to be through digital terrestrial television, but satellite and cable will also have an important role. We expect the broadcasters to bear the major costs, principally of upgrading the transmission network, of achieving the switch-over.

John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an increased commitment to the nations and regions should be an important principle that guides the Government when they review the BBC charter, possibly with the relocation of production facilities and channels—for example, Radio 5 Live or BBC 3—to the north of England?

Tessa Jowell: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the past few weeks, the BBC has made some encouraging statements about its intention for substantial relocation of staff and functions out of London. The BBC must reflect the identities and characteristics of the whole UK. It cannot do that if it is principally an operation that broadcasts from London.

John Whittingdale: Will the Secretary of State accept that one of the fundamental principles that must be upheld in the charter review is that the BBC must be politically impartial and balanced in its coverage? Is not the decision to call a by-election in the middle of the conference season—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that matter.

Female Athletics

Jim Cunningham: What action her Department has taken to promote female professional athletics in the United Kingdom.

Tessa Jowell: I would like to begin by joining the Minister for Sport and Tourism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), in taking this opportunity to thank all our Olympians, men and women, who performed so magnificently at the Athens Olympics. They inspired and moved us all, and redoubled our determination to try to bring the Olympic games to London in 2012. In addition to thanking and congratulating our athletes, I would also like to thank Team GB and the scores of support staff who made those performances possible. My right hon. Friend and I will also be supporting our athletes at the Paralympics, which start this weekend.
	The Olympics have clearly focused our pride on our women athletes, who won four of our five track and field medals in Athens. For the future, UK Athletics is fully committed to implementing what it has described as a new equality standard. In practice, that will mean ensuring that girls and boys, and men and women, have a chance to do well and to compete on an equal basis, whatever the sport.

Jim Cunningham: I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks, but I would also like to ask her what proportion of the resources allocated to the Olympics will be allocated to females athletes, so that we can maintain the high standards that we have seen at the recent Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The equality standard to which I referred will be applied by the governing bodies, and will be one of the conditions against which decisions to fund governing bodies will be taken. It is a lever with which the Government can influence the behaviour of those bodies, to ensure that they take seriously the ambitions of women in sport as well as those of men.

Don Foster: May I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Secretary of State's congratulations to Team GB and all its support staff at the Olympics? We also wish our team well in the forthcoming Paralympic games. May I remind her, however, that under this Government, female participation in athletics and sport has declined? Does she agree that this is not helped when television sports coverage of women's sports is only 5 per cent. of the total coverage, and less than 3 per cent. in our tabloid newspapers? Will she therefore lobby the newspapers and broadcasting companies to ensure that they start to give our women a fair deal?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, yes and yes.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in Crewe, we have a special team of young people who are taking part in the Paralympics, of whom we are inordinately proud and who have produced some very good results in the past? Will she make a special effort not only to encourage these children but to find ways of financing the work that they do, which is tremendously important to them and which needs to be encouraged at every level?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. This is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism and I want to go to Athens, to provide the support that our Paralympic athletes deserve.

Andy Reed: I am sure that all hon. Members here would like to congratulate the British Olympic team and the Paralympians, and, if so, that they would also like to sign my early-day motion 1602. I hope that they will do so, to double the number who have already signed it. The problem for women's sport in particular is the massive drop-off rate during the teenage years. By the time young women get to the age of 17, the number participating in sport has reduced dramatically. What work is my right hon. Friend doing with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that girls continue with sports at school, and what role models can those girls look up to when, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rightly said, there is inadequate media coverage of women's sports? Let us hope that we can use Kelly Holmes and others to ensure that in future more women will want to participate.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Many of our female athletes—Kelly Holmes in particular—take their responsibilities as role models very seriously. Long before their recent Olympic fame, they were in schools providing exactly the kind of leadership that my hon. Friend is talking about. We are very concerned to address the issue that he describes, and the school sport partnerships that are now covering nearly 50 per cent. of schools place a special focus on presenting sport to girls in a way that they can engage with. We recognise the issue, we are determined to tackle it, and we will be judged by our success in doing so.

Millennium Commission Projects

Kevin Brennan: If she will allow sponsors' names to be used in the titles of Millennium Commission projects.

Estelle Morris: The Government do not control the identity of projects supported by the national lottery. The Millennium Commission's grant agreements specify that any change in the name of a project that it funds must be agreed by the commission.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for that answer. But is it not crazy to fetter the future of some wonderful projects such as the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, which many Members have had the opportunity to visit, and which many more may visit in future, particularly when Wales play England at football next year, by not allowing them to maximise the commercial opportunities in the long term by having a sponsor's name in the title of the project? Will she and her colleagues consider this issue with a view to assisting the long-term future of those important projects?

Estelle Morris: First, may I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Millennium stadium? I reiterate, however, that this is a matter not for the Government but for the Millennium Commission. I know, however, that the Millennium Commission is in discussions, and has made it clear that it will consider any proposal that is put to it. That is right. It has also said that when there is lottery money involved a project, that must be made clear to the public and to people who buy lottery tickets. That is why, whatever the title is, it must continue to use the word "Millennium". If my hon. Friend looks a bit further, he will see that the Millennium Commission has allowed naming rights in other projects, such as the Donald Gordon theatre, as part of a much wider project. I do not know what the commission will decide, but it has certainly not said no to considering naming rights. That will be a matter for it and the stadium in the weeks and months to come.

Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the fact that the Millennium Commission gets its money from the lottery, what action are the Government taking to ensure that undesirable people are not allowed to buy lottery tickets? The Secretary of State referred to one such case during the summer recess.

Estelle Morris: First, I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments. Over the summer, people were aghast at the fact that someone who was not able to repay money to victims suddenly came into millions of pounds. To state the obvious, one of the elements of the lottery is chance: there are no criteria in relation to worthy, deserving or non-deserving winners of the lottery. As far as what might happen in the future is concerned, we have no intention of introducing criteria on who should win. If it is legal for someone to buy a ticket, it must be legal for them to take the winnings. The Home Office is considering further what action it may need to take as to the criteria that it decides to impose on who may or may not buy lottery tickets. The gatekeeper is the person who buys the lottery ticket, and there cannot be decisions taken retrospectively when people have bought tickets and won prizes.

Gambling Laws

Andrew MacKay: When she intends to introduce legislation to reform gambling laws.

Richard Caborn: We plan to introduce the gambling Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Bill will modernise the law and provide stronger safeguards. We are considering the second report of the Joint Scrutiny Committee that examined our draft Bill. It made 24 recommendations on regional casinos, and we will consider all those and give our views in the near future.

Andrew MacKay: "As time allows" is very vague, and I am delighted at that. Is the Minister aware that many of us believe that the American-style hard-gambling sheds that will be placed on the edge of towns will adversely affect our communities? We would be strongly opposed to that element of the legislation.

Richard Caborn: That means that we have cross-party support on that issue. Let me make it perfectly clear: we have been driven into this review, which, as many Members know, goes back to Budd, because of the development of new technology in relation to gambling. Many people are being exposed to online gambling who were not exposed to gambling previously. Let us make no mistake about it: the priority of the Bill is "protection, protection, protection." The world has moved on since the 1960s.
	May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who chaired the Joint Scrutiny Committee? He and his colleagues took a realistic view, with deregulation and modernisation on the one hand, and protection on the other. Having examined the impact of gambling in Australia, I note that in a very short period, once the cap had been taken off, it was very difficult to put it back on. All those whom I spoke to in Australia said that they wished that they had moved more proportionately and carefully in their deregulation. We learned a lot from that, and we will make sure that this Bill is informed by some of their experiences.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend, who visited Burnley football club last week, will know that we all think the gambling laws need to be reformed. We have no problem with casinos in places like Blackpool, but as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, there is some anxiety about football clubs, churches and other organisations for which lotteries and other forms of gambling are the main source of income. Does my right hon. Friend think that the reformed laws will ensure that those sources of income are protected for worthy causes?

Richard Caborn: We have been increasing the limits on charitable lotteries, and have done everything we can for the community. Some of the relaxations in the laws that have already taken place are intended to ensure that any surpluses and profits from that type of gambling are returned to the community. We have just been discussing the protection of the lottery. It is ring-fenced, and in that sense it is a private monopoly; but it is ring-fenced in order to help good causes.
	It seems from what I read in the papers that every football club in the country is to have a casino. We shall have to wait for the Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that casinos will not be springing up at every corner as they did in the 1960s. At that time they were commonly used for purposes of crime and money-laundering, but in this instance there will be protection and strong adherence to the law.

John Greenway: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks, but does he agree with the Joint Scrutiny Committee's recommendation that without a reforming Bill, gambling of doubtful legality would continue to increase?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the code of practice jointly adopted last week by his Department and the betting exchanges? That area of gambling is currently not regulated. Is it not the case that without reform we shall not be able to introduce strong new powers through a new gambling commission, strengthen consumer interests, or reinforce the fight against problem gambling by means of greater social responsibility?

Richard Caborn: Obviously I welcome all the steps that have been taken, including what has happened with the Jockey Club and the exchanges on the memorandum of understanding that was signed only a few weeks ago. It appears that in the last few weeks cheating has been looked at very carefully in that part of the industry. We need to go much further, though, and I think that the new gambling commission—which will have far more teeth than the Gaming Board currently has—will ensure that the police and other authorities can move in, in a concerted and effective way, to control problem gambling. We want to prevent crime, and also to ensure that vulnerable people, including children, are protected.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will know of the research that was presented to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which concluded that 2 per cent. of the British population are already addicted to gambling and that simply liberalising the laws will make things worse. Will he take account of that research in pursuing his legislation?

Richard Caborn: A good many reports have been produced, and I do not accept the findings of that one. In fact, the figure is 2 per cent. in Australia and marginally under 1 per cent. here. Nevertheless, the issue is important, which is why Budd recommended the setting up of the Gambling Trust. He wanted us to think not just about how we could mitigate the worst effects, but about some of the causes, and he therefore asked for the establishment of a £3 million fund. The industry has responded effectively to date, and I hope that we shall continue to look at both cause and effect.
	As with any other deregulation, there are some who will behave sensibly. People should be able to gamble sensibly, just as they should be able to drink sensibly without indulging in binge drinking. We must introduce laws that protect without stifling.

Malcolm Moss: Few Bills could have undergone greater or closer scrutiny than the Gambling Bill, under the expert chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning that. The Government's report has elicited almost universal support for the Committee's findings. Given the desire of more or less all involved in the industry for the Bill to be introduced as soon as possible, what reasons can the Government have for delaying it?

Richard Caborn: The reason is parliamentary time. As a seasoned Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman will know that such matters are within the gift not of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but of those who order the business of the House—in which regard, I look to the Whips to my left. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have been pressing very hard on this issue.

Sport England Database

Meg Munn: If she will make a statement on the launch of Sport England's Active Places online database.

Richard Caborn: Active Places is a free-to-use, comprehensive online database of sports facilities in England. It provides details of more than 10,000 facilities, including swimming pools, synthetic pitches, health and fitness centres and ski slopes. Active Places was officially launched on 11 July, and I invited every Member of the House to attend a demonstration of it at Room C at 1 Parliament Street between 10.30 am and 1.30 pm on 14 July. A flyer was also produced, telling Members how to access the database on their constituents' behalf. So every Member was informed, but unfortunately only a few could attend the demonstration. Doubtless it was pressing parliamentary business that prevented them from attending, but I have no doubt that Sport England will set up other demonstrations for any Member who requires one.

Meg Munn: This is an excellent database that provides lots of information, but as it is developed, can consideration be given to asking providers of sports facilities to clarify the cost of such facilities, because cost is often a key factor in families, children and young people deciding whether they want to access them?

Richard Caborn: Very much so, and we shall obviously act on any such constructive suggestions. As I have said, the number of facilities listed on the database—involving some 10,000 locations—is limited, but the database will be continuously updated and we shall add further locations.
	There has been debate about the closure of playing fields and various facilities, and this database will show for the first time ever what facilities we have, where the hot spots are and where we need to invest. In fact, all Governments have previously been investing in a strategic vacuum, because we have lacked the basic data that show where we really need to invest in sports facilities. This database will be one of the tools to give us that up-to-date information, so that we can make informed decisions on such investment.

Jim Knight: I, too, have visited the website. It is excellent in as far as it goes, but it misses out certain key sports—in particular, those that are actively pursued in my constituency. The Minister has visited the skateboarding centre in Weymouth and the sailing centre. Indeed, sailing is the Olympic sport in which we were most successful, and I am lucky enough to represent four of this year's medallists. Is there any prospect of sailing, windsurfing and skateboarding being included on the website?

Richard Caborn: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to talk about Olympic sailing centres—I think that they are on the website—but he refrained from doing so; nevertheless, I take his point. This is the first attempt to compile a Domesday Book of sporting facilities, so that we know what we have and where it is. We will continue to expand the website, and if any Member wants to write to Sport England explaining where, in their view, there are information deficiencies, please do so. This is a partnership, and we want to ensure that everyone in England has access to all the facilities and to up-to-date information, particularly through the website. Constructive comments and criticism will be welcomed.

London Olympic Bid

Anne McIntosh: What the implications for North Yorkshire will be of London's Olympic bid.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady will be aware that Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, encouraged the Government to back the bid for the 2012 Olympics. We will work with it and with RDAs throughout the country to ensure that North Yorkshire and the whole UK will benefit.

Anne McIntosh: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for that reply. The constituency of her colleague the Minister for Sport and Tourism is going to get some magnificent facilities, and I wonder what lies in store for North Yorkshire. Can we look forward to a 50 m pool or an athletics track in Thirsk, Bedale, Boroughbridge, Easingwold or perhaps Poppleton? Otherwise, we will have to travel a remarkably long distance: to Sheffield, or indeed to London.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Lady and I know that there will be an effort, conducted under the auspices of Yorkshire Forward, to bring the whole region together and ensure that it is proactive in marketing its benefits, perhaps attracting holding camps and other facilities for visiting teams. The opportunity for initiative is there to be taken across the whole of the UK. I would urge regional development agencies throughout the UK to take the initiative as Yorkshire Forward has done.

Lawrie Quinn: I remind my right hon. Friend that in Euro 1996, during the successful football championships, North Yorkshire was used to house some of the competitors. I urge her to ensure that the RDA and tourism bodies learn the lessons from that particular experience, bearing it in mind that some of the best hotels and facilities are located on the Yorkshire coast.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are opportunities for hosting preparation camps, and enormous wider tourism opportunities, already demonstrated in respect of the north-west on the back of the Commonwealth games. There will be something like 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs generated by the Olympics, and the opportunity extends to firms across the country to tender for that work. The opportunities are there: the important thing, once we know that we have won the bid, is to seed them.

Boris Johnson: Much as I applaud the lottery funding of athletes in North Yorkshire, may I ask the Secretary of State if she agrees that it is amazing and a disgrace that, here in London, the National Gallery's fantastic east wing project is currently being funded almost entirely by non-UK nationals, while £2.6 billion of unspent cash—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is miles away.

London Olympic Bid

John Barrett: If she will make a statement on the London bid to host the 2012 Olympic games.

Tessa Jowell: London's presentation to the International Olympic Committee during the games in Athens went very well, and our Prime Minister was the only Head of Government of the 2012 candidate cities to be there. The bid is making excellent progress with planning permission granted last Thursday for the Olympic park in the lower Lea valley. The Olympic applications are some of the largest ever to have been considered in the country, but it took just eight months from the submission time, which is an incredible achievement and an excellent boost for our efforts internationally to sell the case for bringing the games to London.

John Barrett: One problem about the London bid identified by the International Olympic Committee is the lack of enthusiasm in the nations and regions about it. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the far-flung nations and regions do not suffer as parts of Greece suffered this year? It was a particularly bad tourist season because people believed that Athens was overbooked, overpriced and overheated.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. The bid team has addressed the importance of engaging people right across the UK through the establishment—under the leadership of Charles Allen, who made such a success of the Manchester games—of a nations and regions committee that will do just that. We need to spread the benefits of the bid all around the UK.
	This is one of the rare issues where cross-party support is crucial, and we hope that it continues—we will be damaged without it—because we all recognise the fantastic benefits that the bid could bring to our country. Every single Member in the House can be an ambassador for our bid—in our constituencies, selling it to people young and old and to those who have never even turned on the television to watch sport before. Everyone has a fresh memory of the inspiration, created even by sitting and watching the television, that the Olympic games uniquely bring.
	I sat in Athens to witness the opening ceremony, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism witnessed the closing ceremony. The Greeks' sense of celebration and pride in their city was palpable. It was wonderful to be part of it and I could not help imagining what it would be like if we had the games in London. That is what we have to strive for and, if we work together to achieve it, it is within our grasp.

Phyllis Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that London's bid would be immeasurably strengthened if we highlighted successful world championship events that have been held here in Britain? I draw her attention to the sterling efforts of the Badminton Association of England in rescheduling the world championships last year in Birmingham because of the SARS epidemic. The association demonstrated that even in such inauspicious circumstances a British sporting authority can run a world championship to great applause from everyone who participates, and especially those from countries in Asia. Will she use that example to strengthen our Olympic bid?

Tessa Jowell: I absolutely agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the particular efforts that she made to secure those world championships. It is exactly that kind of self-confidence that we need. We are a country whose towns and cities are able to stage world-class sporting events and make them a great success. She is right to say that bringing the badminton world championships here strengthened the prospects of our London bid.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Clergy

Ben Chapman: What discussions the Church Commissioners have held recently with the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the terms of employment of members of the clergy.

Stuart Bell: Church of England representatives have played a full part in meetings with the DTI to discuss aspects of the employment status of clergy.

Ben Chapman: While the establishment of the clergy working group with the DTI is very much to be welcomed, I have personally campaigned on this issue for seven years now, and that is far too long. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage the working group to reach speedy, equitable, early and fair conclusions.

Stuart Bell: I am sure that when my hon. Friend is dead—but not forgotten—the words "Employment Relations Act 1999, section 23" will be found engraved on his heart. We welcome the way in which he has pushed this issue, as has the Church, for more than seven years. As he knows, the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small, and we are looking for legislation on the matter during 2005.

David Taylor: I, too, albeit more intermittently, have raised this issue from time to time since 1997. Does my hon. Friend agree that the present status of parish priests is equivalent to self-employed, and as such they have significantly weaker employment rights than do people who are legally employed? Should not we move much more quickly to protect parish priests and others from the vulnerability to which they are currently exposed?

Stuart Bell: As my hon. Friend will know, the clergy terms of service review group, chaired by Professor David McClean, recommended that clergy should have the employment rights conferred by section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, including protection against unfair dismissal and a new form of tenure for those without freehold. On the issue of employment rights per se, the clergy will retain their offices as officeholders within the terms of the clergy terms of service regulations.

Patrick Cormack: Is not the real problem the erosion of the freehold? Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that it is no part of the policy of the Church Commissioners to erode the freehold further?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman puts a pertinent question. The second report that is being prepared on the basis of the first report by Professor David McClean will develop some of the issues that are in the first report, including the possible application of common tenure to clergy with the freehold. It will also address some of the questions that have been raised during the consultation on the first report.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

All-postal Ballots

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the future of all-postal ballots following the most recent report of the Electoral Commission.

Peter Viggers: The commission has produced reports on each of the four all-postal ballots held in June this year, as required by the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004, and also a separate report that looks more widely at the future use of postal voting across Great Britain. It is now for the Government to respond, and of course for others to comment—including honourable colleagues.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that the Electoral Commission said that the trials were marred by complex voting methods, logistical problems and fear of abuse, damaging public confidence. Although the whole House will welcome greater engagement by the electorate in elections—the number of people voting rose by 5 per cent.—does he not feel that the commission may be unwise to say that it is too late to cancel the all-postal election in the north-east?

Peter Viggers: The commission has certainly recommended that voters be offered greater choice in how they receive and cast their vote, but it does not believe that there are sufficient grounds to stop the referendum in the north-east at this stage, when the formal referendum period has already begun, Parliament has agreed to the referendum proceeding and preparations are under way. The commission has also pointed to the fact that campaigning has begun and that there is public expectation that the vote will go ahead. For future elections and referendums, however, it has made it clear that it would not support the use of all-postal voting.

David Heath: In this instance, it is difficult not to say to Ministers, "We told you so." Having read the Electoral Commission's pertinent comments, which deal not only with all-postal voting but with postal voting in normal elections, it seems to me that there are some excellent suggestions for changes in primary legislation to deal with new offences, the dispatch of papers, post-election audits and, most important, the declaration of identity. The Electoral Commission says:
	"All legislation pertaining to an election . . . should be in place in time to allow the implementation of proper and robust procurement process."
	As we are moving towards a general election period, is the commission in discussion with the Government about introducing primary legislation in the next Session to secure its sensible passage, unlike the rushed and unfortunate process that we went through a few months ago?

Peter Viggers: Yes, the commission took the view in July 2003, on the basis of three series of pilots at local elections, that all-postal voting could be recommended for use in local elections, subject to certain stated conditions. However, following the extensive pilot in June 2004, which also included European parliamentary elections, it has moved to the view that all-postal voting does not provide the best basis for moving forward. Its intention is to develop proposals for what it calls a foundation model for multi-channel elections, as indicated in its recent report, "Delivering Democracy", and to report on a recommended approach before 31 March 2005. The model is expected to build on the benefits of all-postal voting while retaining the use of polling stations. The commission will consult interested individuals, including Members of Parliament and political parties, as the development work gets under way later this year, but it takes the view that it is necessary to do that careful preliminary work before legislation is introduced.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Parish Priests

Anne McIntosh: Pursuant to his oral answer of 28 June, Official Report, columns 18-19, on parish priests, how vocations day contributes to the recruitment of rural parish priests.

Stuart Bell: As an aside, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is still in the Chamber, may I say how much we shall miss him in our part of Question Time? John Keats wrote the line,
	"Just for a handful of silver he left us"—

Patrick Cormack: It was Browning.

Stuart Bell: I am very grateful for that correction. Hansard will also be grateful. We miss the hon. Member for Lichfield in relation to Lichfield cathedral and other Church matters, and hope that he will soon be back among us.
	On the question put by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), vocations Sunday gives the Church the opportunity to encourage everyone to reflect and discover their God-given call, and resources are provided for dioceses to help in that process.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I know that he shares my concern about the number of rural priests who are approaching retirement. Has he given any more thought to that problem? Mindful of the fact that we have had a particularly harsh summer, with bad weather affecting rural farmers, which has put more pressure on parish priests, how can vocations Sunday help and what specific emphasis are the priests giving?
	May I also ask the hon. Gentleman to join me in congratulating the Archbishop of York in giving such a magnificent lead, in proposing to return to what should be the ultimate ministry—rural parish priesthood?

Stuart Bell: The Archbishop of York has rendered a signal service to the Church over many years. He will be sadly missed in his role as archbishop, but I am sure that his continued search for the salvation of souls through the parish church is most welcome.
	On the hon. Lady's point about the number of parish priests in rural areas, she will be aware that the majority of clergy now entering the stipendiary ministry have had previous careers. They are therefore likely to have family commitments and limits on their mobility. In addition, they may wish to minister in a setting that is similar to that from which they have come. That is, of course, a broad generalisation, but it helps to explain why rural dioceses sometimes find it more difficult than others to attract stipendiary clergy.
	On the hon. Lady's first question, the recent feedback suggests that, following the initiatives that I have announced, a number of men and women have been encouraged to explore a call to ordination in rural parishes and elsewhere with their local clergy, vocation advisers and diocesan directors of ordinance.

Ordinands

Chris Bryant: How many (a) women and (b) men are in training for ordination.

Stuart Bell: For the year 2003–04, there were 641 women and 659 men in training for ordination.

Chris Bryant: Bearing in mind the fact that the number of women in ordination training is now almost catching up with the number of men, is it not about time that the Church of England woke up to the fact that there are women who are performing very good jobs in cathedrals and parishes up and down the land, and that it is time we had some on the Bench of Bishops as well?

Stuart Bell: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions, and I did, of course, anticipate that one. He will be happy to know that I recently enjoyed a midday service at the Trinity church in New York and an eventide service at Westminster abbey—both were officiated at by women priests, and I enjoyed them both immensely.
	On my hon. Friend's latter point, he will be aware that a working group, chaired by the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, has been giving serious consideration to the question of women in the episcopate and to the theology behind such a question. We must wait for the group to report to the General Synod before drawing conclusions, but my hon. Friend's voice will be heard.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

General Election Turnout

Graham Allen: What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to improve turnout at general elections; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Viggers: Under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission is responsible for promoting public awareness of electoral and democratic systems. It does so through programmes of education and information. The commission aims, through that activity, to contribute to increased electoral participation over time.

Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman pass on to the Electoral Commission the congratulations of many hon. Members on the campaign that it mounted before the European elections to publicise people's rights to get involved in politics and participate in elections? Many of us have a sense of embarrassment at the number of people who failed to vote, even in our own constituencies. Will he request the Electoral Commission to consider the possibility of running pilot schemes in the constituencies of Members of all parties to try to discover why people do not vote and what steps we can all take to improve participation in our democracy?

Peter Viggers: Indeed, evidence seems to indicate that the Electoral Commission's campaigns have had considerable effect, and the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in the subject—and indeed met the chairman of the Electoral Commission this morning.
	You know, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission has no direct responsibility in these fields, and to that extent, as the spokesman of the Speaker's Committee, I am merely the drone target against whom hon. Members can essay their flights of wit and wisdom. However, hon. Members who have a view on postal voting and other matters have two opportunities to contribute this week: first, the Minister for Local and Regional Government hopes to catch your eye to make a statement later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker; and secondly, on Thursday in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on the report from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on postal voting, which will give an opportunity to all hon. Members to contribute to the discussion.

Simon Thomas: Is the Electoral Commission considering the issue of Thursdays? We in the United Kingdom have a tradition of voting only on Thursdays and for one day only. Many other countries achieve higher participation in their general elections by voting on more than one day, and in particular at weekends. What consideration is being given to those moves?

Peter Viggers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Electoral Commission has an open mind on the issue and believes that it requires further study.

David Kidney: Regarding what the hon. Gentleman said about links with education, does he know—if not, will he arrange for a letter to be sent to me afterwards—whether the Electoral Commission has links with curriculum co-ordinators who are responsible for delivering the citizenship curriculum in schools? One role of citizenship lessons in schools is to develop political literacy among young people, and of course young voters are the ones who stay at home the most.

Peter Viggers: I have no doubt that that is exactly the kind of matter on which the Electoral Commission is active. Rather than attempting to respond at this point, I am sure that the commission would welcome the opportunity to write to the hon. Gentleman with further information.

Business of the House

Phil Woolas: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
	The business for Thursday 16 September will now be consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill, followed by a debate on HIV/AIDS in the developing world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will of course make his usual business statement on Thursday.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for the business statement, but does he recall that last Thursday I asked for extra time to be allowed so that hon. Members on both sides of the House could put forward motions under section 2 of the Parliament Act to accompany the Hunting Bill to the other place? It is most unsatisfactory that we have a highly draconian procedural motion on the Order Paper today that will not only guillotine the business of this House, but provide for the Parliament Act to be used on the other place. Given that the two outstanding issues of compensation and the breadth of the offence were never properly debated or tackled in this House and that the business on Thursday has now gone, surely it would be possible for us to deal with the Hunting Bill properly on Thursday.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might assist the House if I explain the background to the statement. As hon. Members will know, last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that the Second Reading of the Civil Partnership Bill was due to take place this Thursday. Since then, hon. Members have asked for that date to be changed to accommodate the needs of those who wish to participate in the Northern Ireland talks that are due to take place at Leeds castle in Kent this Thursday—I am sure that the whole House agrees that we want those talks and negotiations to be successful. As ever, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wishes to ensure that all views in the House are protected and that all hon. Members with strong points of view on matters of principle and conscience regarding the Civil Partnership Bill have the opportunity to raise them in the debate.
	On the Hunting Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has ensured that the moment of interruption will be put back. The House has debated the matter on five occasions and we have been generous in allocating time for the business motion. [Hon. Members: "Too generous."] My hon. Friends say that we have been too generous in allocating time for the motion, Second Reading and the amendments. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will ensure that there is sufficient good debate on Wednesday for us to take a decision.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amplification of his statement, which makes it clear that the change was due to a request from those who will participate in the Leeds castle talks—we certainly would not want to stand in the way of that. Does he accept that it is a constant puzzle to hon. Members that business is immutable and inflexible on occasions when the Government do not want it to be flexible, and highly flexible when they do want that? Will he convey to the Leader of the House the concern among Liberal Democrats that such flexibility should not be shown exclusively in favour of the Government?

Phil Woolas: That is slightly unfair if one considers the matter from the business managers' point of view. The postponement of Second Reading at this stage in the Session makes our job more difficult, not less. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that our intention in suggesting the change is entirely honourable.

Gerald Kaufman: Is not what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is complaining about something called "being in power", which will never trouble his party?

Phil Woolas: As ever, I concur with my right hon. and senior Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). Of course, the time available for debate under any system during this Parliament is finite, and somebody has to decide. Thank goodness, it is not the Liberal Democrats and nor, I imagine, will that ever be the case again. If it were, I imagine that we would have 24/7 Parliament and no decisions would be made.

Patrick McLoughlin: But can the Minister tell us how long the Government have known about the meeting at Leeds castle? How committed are they to these September sittings? We found out last week that we were only sitting for three days when we were supposed to be sitting for four, and the new business for Thursday is technically an Adjournment debate. Twenty-five per cent. of the September recall will therefore be taken up with our dealing with insubstantial matters. Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish to comment on that?

Phil Woolas: I would say to all hon. Members that a debate on HIV/AIDS in the developing world is hardly insubstantial. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the September sittings will encompass two Second Readings—I am sure that he appreciates that that is important core business for the House—the Lords amendments that I have just announced and which the other place asked us to consider, and important matters such as the prevalence of HIV in the developing world. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like the September sittings, but as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has announced, the House can make a decision on them in the new year.

Chris Grayling: But it seems to me that the Minister is avoiding the core point. Over the past couple of years, every time that there has been a major issue on the table for the Government, and on which large numbers of hon. Members have wanted to have a say, debate is curtailed. Why, then, do the Government manage to find time for full-day Adjournment debates?

Phil Woolas: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The Government business managers and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have to ensure, and they do, that all parts of the House have their fair share of debates. My right hon. Friend has to ensure that time is allocated to debates on Select Committee reports, Second Readings, amendments, Report stages and Third Readings, and he does so. The charge that insufficient time is provided is negated by the facts, as reported to the Procedure and Modernisation Committees, that prove that, under the current regime, more time is devoted to scrutiny than was the case in previous Parliaments.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister confirm none the less that the delayed Second Reading of the Civil Partnership Bill does not mean that the Government are withdrawing their commitment to a measure that they want to reform into a proper shape after the Lords tried to dismantle it earlier this year? In fact, carry-over time is allowed for it, so it does not have to complete its passage this Session.

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has made an important point—the Civil Partnership Bill is part of our legislative programme, and is a flagship Bill. It helps to build the case for equality in this country, and ensures that many citizens will be given rights that at present they do not have. As my hon. Friend has suggested, our decision should not be taken in any way to mean a diminution in its priority.

Peter Luff: It would be churlish not to welcome flexibility by the Government whenever they are prepared to show it, but could I encourage the Minister to exercise that flexibility rather differently? It is true that the Hunting Bill has been scrutinised extensively in the House, but not in its current form, and many issues concerning its practicality, its enforceability and intellectual consistency deserve greater scrutiny. The Government should at least have a chance to put the answers that we have not heard. Perhaps an extra day for that Bill is the best way forward.

Phil Woolas: I disagree. We have taken a decision and believe that we have allocated generous time on Wednesday to deal with the motion, Second Reading and any amendments that might be proposed. We have put back the moment of interruption, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. It is time to take a decision. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to take that decision, but prefers to continue to delay it, he can make that point on Wednesday.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House? No one can suppose that generous provision has been made for discussion of the Hunting Bill: it is five hours for Second Reading, inclusive of the procedure motion. Surely we have another day available. We should use that second day to discuss in Committee the detail of the Bill and to debate further the use of the Parliament Act. We have a right to discuss those matters, because the Bill is an intolerant, illiberal measure. We have the time to debate it further, and we should do so.

Phil Woolas: I am beginning to feel that we are pre-empting Wednesday's debate. The points that have been raised are ones for the debate on the Hunting Bill. I emphasise that Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill—a Bill to which a commitment was made in the Employment Relations Act 1999, in response to a request from Conservative Members—have to be debated within this Session, and Thursday seems to provide a good opportunity to do so.

Regional Referendums

Nick Raynsford: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House on regional and local referendums in the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber. Before doing so, I offer the House apologies on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for his absence today, as he has to attend a funeral.
	Today's statement follows one I made in July in which I referred to the differences of view in the House about whether we should go ahead with referendums in the north-west, and in Yorkshire and the Humber. I explained the Government's decision to reschedule the referendums in those areas and confirmed, against a strong confidence in postal voting in the north-east, our decision to proceed with the referendum in that region. Hon. Members will recall that Parliament approved the orders enabling that referendum to take place.
	In July, I also gave the House two assurances. First, I said that the Government would not proceed with the referendum in the north-east on the basis proposed if the Electoral Commission produced convincing evidence that it would be unsafe to do so. Secondly, I said that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would make a further statement in September on how we intended to proceed with the referendums in the north-west and in Yorkshire and the Humber, having had the opportunity to consider the Electoral Commission's evaluation report of the June electoral pilots. Today's statement follows on from those two assurances.
	The Electoral Commission published its report on 27 August. In parallel, it published a statement setting out its view of the implications of its report for the regional and local referendums in the north-east. That report concludes that successful elections were delivered in the four pilot regions. The commission states that, to date, it is not aware of any evidence to suggest any widespread abuse of postal voting either within or beyond the pilot regions. Moreover, from an extensive public opinion survey, the commission found that people in the pilot regions were satisfied with all-postal voting by a margin of two to one—59 per cent. against 29 per cent.
	Nevertheless, the commission concludes that the all-postal pilots raise a number of important issues that need to be addressed in relation to the future development of voting methods in Britain. It makes a range of recommendations designed to make voting more convenient, to increase the administrative capacity to run elections, and to build greater public confidence in voting arrangements. Above all, the commission identifies in its report the strong public support for electors to have choice in how to vote—a demand for choice that the commission is clear that all-postal voting does not meet. Accordingly, it has withdrawn its previous recommendation that all-postal voting should become the norm in local government elections.
	In its place, the commission proposes to develop a new foundation model of voting as a basis for future multi-channel elections. The commission undertakes to work with Government, electoral administrators, political parties, and experts in access and security to design that new approach to voting, which must be capable of offering electors both choice and security. It is against that background of findings and recommendations that the commission has drawn up its statement about the conduct of regional and local referendums.
	The commission has unambiguously concluded that the north-east referendum, which the House has approved for 4 November, should proceed as an all-postal ballot without changes to the process. Central to the commission reaching that conclusion is its recognition that the referendum process is already under way, and its judgment that there would be far greater risk to the process if significant changes were made now than if the referendum continued as planned.
	The commission recognises that the system for the north-east referendum is an improvement over that piloted in June, particularly as there is no requirement for a witness to sign a security statement and because we have required considerably more assistance and delivery points at which voters can receive help and vote in privacy. The commission also recognises that there have been no allegations of fraud in the north-east, that there is extensive experience of all-postal voting in that region, and that there is greater public support for all-postal voting there than in any other region.
	Accordingly, the commission explicitly states that it is not making any recommendations for change to the orders already made in relation to the conduct of the north-east referendums. The commission undertakes to work with the chief counting officer and the Government to encourage and promote good practice within the framework of the existing order.
	There are therefore no grounds for not proceeding with the north-east referendums. They will go ahead as planned on 4 November. The Government welcome the commission's undertaking to work with others to encourage and promote good practice, and we stand ready to play our part.
	As for the referendums in the north-west and in Yorkshire and the Humber, in its statement, the commission states that given the recommendations in its evaluation report, it could not support any future referendums on the all-postal basis now being used for the north-east. We welcome the commission's commitment to multi-channel elections—the form of elections that has consistently been the long-term aim of the Government's electoral modernisation strategy. We are ready to work with the commission on developing its proposed new foundation model of voting and we will discuss with the commission how that will be taken forward. We hope that all key stakeholders will join us. We share the commission's belief about the importance of securing a degree of public and political consensus in favour of significant changes to the electoral process before moving forward. We note that the commission aims to report on the new model in March 2005.
	Against that background, it would be wrong now to reach final conclusions on the precise timing and form of the referendums in the north-west and in Yorkshire and the Humber. Over the coming months we, and others, will want to see how work progresses on the new foundation model, and to consider and analyse more deeply the full range of the commission's recommendations. We will then be better placed to take final decisions about the form and timing of those referendums. I would, however, reiterate what I said in July: the Government are absolutely committed to the referendums going ahead.
	It is important that the people of the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber should have their opportunity to express their view for or against an elected regional assembly and the associated local government reorganisation. I understand the concerns that have been voiced about delay leading to uncertainty about the future structure of local government in Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and North Yorkshire. We recognise that concern, and we take it very seriously, but we want to make sure that the referendums are held against a background of confidence in the voting system. We will of course aim to minimise the delay. In all events, given the need for primary legislation following a yes vote in one referendum to allow elected regional assemblies to be established and the associated local government reorganisation to take place, there is no reason why this revised timetable for the referendums should cause significant delay to the overall local government reorganisation timetable.
	The extensive electoral pilots last June have much to teach us all. Already they have led the commission to revise some of its key conclusions about all-postal voting, which it had drawn from earlier, smaller pilots. The way is now clear for the people of the north-east to make their choice on an elected regional assembly for their region, and the people of the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber can be confident that they, too, will be able to exercise their choice before too long.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of his statement well in advance. I am bound to say that it contained no surprises and raised a wry smile on my face. The Electoral Commission report is clear on several points that the Government have hitherto denied. Turnout in the all-postal voting regions was only five percentage points higher than elsewhere, and not 50 per cent. up as the Government falsely claimed. The public do not trust all-postal voting, and major reforms are required to increase the security of postal voting, even if it is postal voting on demand.
	Of course the report's key recommendation is to abandon all-postal voting for all future statutory elections and referendums.
	The Electoral Commission has delivered the most astonishing and courageous snub to the Government on this policy. The Minister's statement is simply the latest lurch in the Government's conduct of policy on all-postal voting. First, in January they included the north-west and Yorkshire in the June postal pilots, against the advice of the Electoral Commission. Then the Government forced them through the House of Lords, ignoring all the warnings about the tight timetables and lack of public confidence. They insisted there were no problems, as the elections proceeded in an atmosphere of utter chaos. Ballot packs were misprinted. There were panic reprints. Ballot packs were lost in the post or delivered to the wrong voters. Some voters got no ballot packs at all; some got more ballot packs than they bargained for.
	Most important, when ballot papers are distributed willy-nilly to thousands of people who have no intention of voting, all-postal voting allows almost unlimited scope for electoral fraud. So why, after the June elections, did the Government still insist that all-postal voting was "a success"? I notice the Minister is still using the word "successful" in relation to the pilots. If one has tested a system to destruction and to the satisfaction of everybody that it is an unsound system, I suppose that is a kind of success.
	Only when Labour Back Benchers lined up against the Government to denounce all-postal ballots did they abandon all-postal referendums in Yorkshire and the north-west. Now, the whole system of all-postal voting has been roundly condemned by the Electoral Commission out of hand. Since those of us who issued warnings to the Government have been utterly vindicated, will the Minister now abandon all-postal voting in the north-east referendum? Will he confirm that the Electoral Commission is not calling for change? The only reason it is not calling for change is that Parliament approved the orders back in July. Of course it is not for the Electoral Commission to second-guess decisions of the House. It is for Parliament to revisit those decisions.
	Has the Minister forgotten, incidentally, that back in July the commission opposed the Government laying the orders for the north-east referendum in the first place? So why did the Minister not quote the commission's disclaimer on the north- east referendum, which states:
	"Nothing in this statement"—
	supporting the north-east referendum—
	"should be interpreted as offering reassurance that . . . the referendum process in the North East will be risk free or secure a high degree of public support"?
	If that is not the commission washing its hands of the problem, I do not know what is. It does not want to be responsible for the Government's irresponsible intransigence.
	The Minister has no answer to the following question: if it is wrong to go ahead in Yorkshire or the north-west, why should the people of the north-east have to use a discredited voting system in their referendum? May I suggest to the Minister what he should do? Why not abandon all-postal voting in the referendum and ask Parliament for the necessary powers to revert to the tried and tested ballot box? I note the point that the Electoral Commission makes about the far greater risk of changing the system now, but I do not quite understand the point that it makes.
	Even if the Prime Minister wanted a general election on 4 November, are we to take the Electoral Commission's advice and let it tell us that there is far too great a risk for the Prime Minister to call a general election before Christmas? That is totally unreasonable. The Government have just moved a writ for the Hartlepool by-election on 30 September. Did I hear the Electoral Commission tell us that there is much too much risk to call a by-election at such short notice? If there is time to call a general election by 4 November, there is time to revert to a tried and tested voting system in the north-east—a voting system that the people of the north-east can trust. As was recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) in his private Member's Bill before the recess, surely the people of the north-east deserve the best voting system that we can provide for them.
	The Minister is an honourable man. He would do much for his reputation and for the House if he admitted that the Government got it wrong. They are still getting the matter wrong. The right hon. Gentleman is carrying out his political masters' wish for all-postal voting because they hope to disguise the apathy towards Labour's unwanted elected regional assembly in the north-east. Labour's determination to carry on regardless clearly demonstrates that it puts self-interest before public interest and party before principle, and that it has no respect for the integrity of the constitution, which it should be Labour's duty to defend.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman showed his mastery of selective quoting in trying to support his point. He conveniently chose to ignore all evidence from the Electoral Commission that does not agree with his point of view. That reminds me of the position that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) took in an earlier debate, in which he said that he did not care about the Electoral Commission's views, which indicates the seriousness of the Opposition when it comes to important matters of election procedure and probity.
	The hon. Gentleman's first point was that the Electoral Commission had proved that the Government's claim that all-postal voting had doubled turnout was wrong. I shall quote paragraph 4.19, page 29 of the Electoral Commission report:
	"While turnout more than doubled in pilot regions, it increased by only half that amount in non-pilot areas."
	The report states that, compared with the previous European election, the increase in the pilot areas was 109.46 per cent. and in the non-pilot regions it was 53.38 per cent. Most people with the slightest smattering of mathematics would say that the result in the pilot areas was double that in the non-pilot areas. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should try to use a technical point about percentage points casuistically to claim that the Government have got the matter wrong, and I suggest that he read the report more carefully.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we held the all-postal pilots in June this year against the Electoral Commission's advice, but that is not true, because we consulted it at great length. The Electoral Commission recommended two regions as particularly suited to all-postal voting and four other regions as potentially suited to all-postal voting. We had previously asked the Electoral Commission to recommend three regions as suitable for all-postal voting and one region as suitable for an electronic pilot. In the event, the Commission did not recommend an electronic pilot, and we did not hold one. When we decided which regions should have all-postal pilots, we took the two regions that the Electoral Commission recommended as eminently suitable and two of the four regions that it recommended as potentially suitable. The hon. Gentleman's argument that we ignored the Electoral Commission's advice is simply untenable.
	The hon. Gentleman repeated the exaggerated claims of problems associated with the pilots in June. If he examines page 50, paragraph 4.104 of the Electoral Commission report, he will read the following, which he might wish to ponder before he makes any rash allegations:
	"In summary, we are not aware of any evidence to date to suggest any widespread abuse of postal voting, either in or beyond the pilot regions."
	Those are the words of the Electoral Commission.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should abandon the north-east referendum, against the advice of the Electoral Commission, which says that we should proceed. He quoted the Electoral Commission saying that it would not be safe, so I shall tell him what the Electoral Commission actually said:
	"There is presently no evidence on which to conclude that an all-postal referendum in the North East would be unsafe in terms of fraud or malpractice. To the Commission's knowledge, no allegations of electoral fraud made in the North East in relation to the June all-postal pilot scheme have led to formal prosecutions".
	Those are the Electoral Commission's conclusions, and the hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no service by trying to ignore them.
	The hon. Gentleman discussed the possibility of the referendum in the north-east being conducted by conventional means, against the clear advice of the Electoral Commission, which states that changing the basis of the referendum at this late stage would be risky. He also shows contempt for the views of people in the north-east, who have consistently shown their support for all-postal voting. The Opposition's position is simply not credible.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy.
	As we are the only party to have consistently supported the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, no matter what they are, we very much welcome its total rejection of all-postal ballots for council elections. That is a huge victory for voters and for democracy, and a real setback for the Government. But why did not the Minister clarify whether he is accepting the recommendation unambiguously? Will he confirm that there will be no all-postal ballots in council elections in future and that that means that voters will be able to vote at their local polling station as now? The provision of the odd extra assistance and delivery point will not suffice and will not represent a true shift away from all-postal votes. The Minister may say that the position depends on the Electoral Commission's recommendation for the new foundation model of voting, but surely he can clarify what no all-postal voting means.
	On the north-east referendum, the Minister is right and Conservative Front Benchers are wrong, because the Electoral Commission said in no uncertain terms that that vote could go ahead safely. Does he agree that the Conservatives' approach smacks of desperation, especially as only a few weeks ago they had U-turned and were in favour of the vote going ahead?
	In the light of the Electoral Commission's report, does the Minister recognise that special care is needed to ensure that there are sufficient assistance and delivery points in rural areas in the north-east region?
	Will the Minister say a little more about the timing of the referendums for the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber regional assemblies? Does he agree that it would be wrong to give any impression that they will be deferred for long? Can he at least confirm that they will take place before the end of next year?
	Will the Minister confirm—perhaps this is the final embarrassment for the Deputy Prime Minister—that the Electoral Commission is arguing that responsibility for every aspect of all elections be given to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and taken away from the ODPM once and for all?

Nick Raynsford: I have got used to Liberal Democrats not being consistent, but I was somewhat taken aback by the confidence with which the hon. Gentleman began his remarks. He stated that his party was the only party to have consistently supported the Electoral Commission's recommendations, then went on to say that he welcomes its rejection of all-postal voting in its latest report. He has obviously forgotten that in its report into the 2003 pilots, the commission recommended that all-postal voting should become the norm for all local elections. If, as he claims, the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported the Electoral Commission's recommendations, they have clearly just about-turned on their previous position. If they agreed with that recommendation, they cannot now say that they are opposed to it yet have always been consistent. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been let down.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the north-east. It is right to proceed with that referendum, and, as he rightly said, the Electoral Commission has stated that there is no sound basis whatever for postponing or cancelling it.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about assistance and delivery points. We have made provision for there to be more of those than in the pilots, with a minimum of one for each 50,000 of the population and the returning officer able to agree more in appropriate cases. We certainly support that and will work closely with the chief counting officer, who is the chief executive of Sunderland council, and the Electoral Commission to ensure that there is a good supply of assistance and delivery points where people can vote in person and in privacy if they choose to do so.
	On the timetable for the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber, it would not be appropriate to take a decision until we have had an opportunity to see the work that the Electoral Commission has developed on the foundation model. We expect its report to be available in March next year, and we will then be in a better position to reach a decision.
	As for pulling together the responsibilities of two Departments, I did not notice in the Electoral Commission's report a recommendation as to which Department should take responsibility. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman read a different report from the one that I read. He should be a bit careful before drawing such inferences.

Gordon Prentice: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision not to rush ahead prematurely with a referendum on a regional assembly in the north-west, which some Labour Members believe that it would be very difficult to win. Given that there is uncertainty in councils across the north-west and, indeed, in Yorkshire and the Humber, is my right hon. Friend minded to decouple any proposals for local government reform from the principal question of whether to establish regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the Government's decision to proceed in the north-east and postpone the referendums in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. I made it clear in my statement that we accepted that there was some uncertainty about local government reorganisation and that we wanted to press ahead as soon as possible. However, it has always been our position that there must be a link between a vote in favour of an elected regional assembly and the creation of a streamlined, unitary local government structure to avoid a proliferation of tiers of government and to ensure a streamlined and efficient administration. That remains the Government's policy.

Paul Beresford: Despite the Minister's brave words on fraud and postal voting, he must accept that considerable concern remains. In the run-up to all-postal voting, New Zealand was used as a positive example. The mayor of Auckland informed me that he estimates that at least 50 per cent. of the increased turnout is down to fraud, and Auckland has had a little more practice than here. In the light of those concerns, does the Minister accept that a yes vote in the north-east should carry a substantial majority? What would he accept as the minimum figures for both a yes and a no vote?

Nick Raynsford: I agree about the importance of turnout. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not jump to the conclusion that a substantial increase in turnout is associated with fraud. All the evidence of the Electoral Commission's work in the pilots that were conducted in 2000, 2002, 2003 and again this year shows no substantial fraud in postal voting in the pilot areas or elsewhere. That is the Electoral Commission's considered judgment. All-postal pilots have resulted in a substantial increase in the number of participants in elections. That is a serious matter. No party can afford to ignore a decline in participation in the democratic process. We must be serious in trying to engage people and use sensible ways of doing that.
	However, I agree about the importance of confidence in the voting system. That is why we have greatly welcomed the Electoral Commission's proposals on the way forward through exploring a foundation model that would contain the benefits of increased convenience—and therefore the likelihood of higher turnout, which came with all-postal voting—and also choice for the electorate who want to vote in person, in the traditional way. That is the right way forward and we shall work closely with the Electoral Commission on developing that model.

Doug Henderson: People in the north-east will greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to proceed with the referendum. They will also welcome the decision not to have the bureaucratic witness system with postal voting. One of my constituents described it to me as "Something daft that them down south thought up." The effect of the witness system was not to deal with fraud—in fact, it encouraged some people to commit fraud as witnesses—but to deter many people, who found it too bureaucratic, from voting. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that adequate publicity is given to the change well in advance of 4 November?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about our decision to press ahead in the north-east. He knows that there is absolute support throughout the north-east for conducting the referendum and for using all-postal ballots. As the Electoral Commission points out, the north-east has had greater experience, from 2000 onwards, of all-postal ballots, and its survey shows greater public confidence in all-postal voting in the north-east than in any other region. We are therefore convinced that it is right to proceed.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the problem with the witness statements in June. He may be interested to know that a council by-election has subsequently been held, using all-postal votes but without a witness statement, in Darlington. It was held at the end of August and the turnout was some five percentage points higher than in June, when witness statements were used. That is interesting evidence that should be taken into account. [Interruption.] Before Opposition Members laugh, they should remember that, before the pilots that the Government initiated in 2000, it had sadly become common for turnout in local council by-elections to fall to derisory levels of 10 per cent. or thereabouts. In Darlington, the turnout was 38.9 per cent. for a council by-election in August.
	That is an indication that all-postal voting has been able to reverse the trend of decline and has made it possible for more people to vote, which is not something that we should lightly disregard.

Damian Green: The Minister will be aware that, behind some of the knockabout in which he has been indulging, the serious issue is whether he is going to set up a referendum that will have the shadow of fraud over it, which would mean that the cloud of fraud would hang over all elections conducted in this way. I am sure that he would want to avoid that. If the only difference between the pilots and the referendum is to be the removal of the witness statements, perhaps because of a bureaucratic problem, that would mean that the amount of checks against fraud would be reduced. The shadow of fraud would therefore be greater in the referendum than it was in the pilots. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is not enough simply to talk about turnout? People need to be confident that it is not only the number of votes that has increased, but the number of voters as well, and that the increased turnout is not due to fraud. The Minister is reducing the protection against fraud under this new system.

Nick Raynsford: The Electoral Commission quite clearly says in its statement:
	"There is presently no evidence on which to conclude that an all-postal referendum in the north-east would be unsafe in terms of fraud or malpractice."
	That is the considered view of the commission, and the hon. Gentleman should pay attention to that. He is incorrect to say that the only change between the June pilot and the November referendum will be the removal of the witness statement. The other very significant change, to which the commission referred in its report, is the availability of far more extensive advice and delivery points, at which people will be able to vote in person, in privacy, if they wish to do so. That is a further significant change, in response to the genuine concerns voiced by people who want the opportunity to vote in person. We are therefore proceeding on the basis of the informed view of the Electoral Commission, and of the evidence that the north-east has consistently been able to achieve higher levels of participation and turnout as a result of all-postal voting without any evidence of a serious problem of fraud or malpractice.

Peter Pike: Many people in the north-west will, like the Government, very much regret the fact that this issue has been deferred in our region. They will, however, understand the announcement that   my right hon. Friend has made today. They support the Government's wish to give more democratic accountability on regional strategic and financial issues, and they want to see that done as soon as possible. They also believe that unitary authorities, to which the Labour Government are committed, provide better local government. I hope that, as soon as the foundation voting system is established, we can go ahead with the referendum in the north-west as soon as possible. I still hope to see that happen before I retire at the next general election, which need not be until 2006.

Nick Raynsford: I note and entirely support my hon. Friend's concern to see that the people of the north-west are given the opportunity to vote on an elected regional assembly in a referendum at the earliest opportunity. He will understand that, given the various other factors that might come into play next year, I cannot give him an absolute assurance of the kind that he seeks. I have said, however, that we will give serious consideration to the Electoral Commission's proposed foundation model as soon as we see it, and we shall be working with the commission as it develops it. I hope to be able to make a statement—at the very least—on our decision in relation to the north-west and to Yorkshire and the Humber while my hon. Friend is still a Member of the House.

Andrew Stunell: Does the Minister agree that a strong, independently elected regional assembly for the north-west would be a strong bulwark against arbitrary central Government decisions such as the cancellation of funding for the Metrolink tram in Greater Manchester, and his own Department's decision to refuse the Ikea application in Stockport? Will he therefore give the House a strong assurance that the fastest possible progress will be made on implementing this very important proposal?

Nick Raynsford: We share the hon. Gentleman's view that there should be greater devolution to the regions, and we believe that decisions should be taken on matters affecting regional economic development and regional planning at regional level wherever possible.
	That is right and proper. I do not accept his view on Metrolink, on which the issue is under consideration, but I share his view entirely on the benefits of devolution. Our commitment is to allow people in the English regions the opportunity to have effective, elected regional assemblies, which are able to take decisions on matters that affect their region and to improve the economic performance and quality of life of their people.

Andrew MacKay: Now that even the Minister appears to have followed the Electoral Commission in realising that all-postal votes are wrong, and he is talking about the electorate rightly having a choice as to how they vote in future, can we assume that the referendum in the north-east will be the very last all-postal ballot?

Nick Raynsford: Before the right hon. Gentleman tries to rewrite history, let me remind him that a year ago, the Electoral Commission reported on the 2003 pilots, and recommended that all-postal voting should become the norm in local government elections. That was not the Government's recommendation but the Electoral Commission's. We did not accept that recommendation; we believed that it was right to continue with pilots. We have done so, and we have learned a great deal from further pilots. We believe that that has helped to inform progress towards what has always been our objective: multi-channel elections, which allow people the opportunity and choice to vote by means that they find most convenient. We have not reached a final decision on the Electoral Commission's report and recommendations, but I have indicated clearly our sympathy and support for the concept of the multi-channel foundation model that it is working up, which is entirely consistent with our approach, which we have enunciated for several years.

Graham Brady: The Government accept that support for regional government in the north-west and in Yorkshire and the Humber is less than in the north-east. If the north-east votes no, or if the turnout is derisory, will the Minister undertake not to proceed with costly and time-wasting referendums in those regions? Will he also give an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), and give a percentage for what he thinks is an acceptable majority and a derisory turnout?

Nick Raynsford: It is a slightly odd argument that people in the hon. Gentleman's region and in Yorkshire and the Humber should not be allowed an opportunity to express their view, which may differ from the view expressed in the north-east. The whole basis of the Government's policy is choice: each region will be given a choice. It would be wrong to cancel arbitrarily that opportunity simply because another region had voted in a particular way. That is not democracy or common sense.
	On the issue of thresholds, the hon. Gentleman will know the perverse consequences that come when an arbitrary threshold is set, and when a referendum or other election is not valid unless a particular turnout is achieved. That crippled the move towards devolution in Scotland in the late 1970s—an arbitrary 40 per cent. threshold was set even though the people of Scotland voted in favour of devolution. Because that threshold was not met, they could not proceed, and were deeply unhappy about that decision for 20 years. His party's annihilation from the Scottish electoral scene is in no small measure due to its failure to understand the anger of the Scots about the failure of this Parliament to allow them the opportunity for devolution.
	Apart from that, the other issue is the perverse incentive that if a threshold is set, those who believe that they cannot beat their opponents and win the argument by voting can try to do so simply by not voting. That should not be welcome in a democracy. We want to encourage turnout, that is what we are doing, and that is why we are pursuing measures designed to increase participation in both local government elections and referendums.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister's Department, I believe, is signed up to the Plain English Campaign. Can he tell us what is meant by
	"a basis for future multi-channel elections to develop a new foundation model of voting"?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has, I hope, been listening to the debate, and will know that the Electoral Commission has set out its proposals for a new model that would include provision for people to vote by post, in person and electronically. That is multi-channel. I have referred to that several times, and most people who have followed the debate understand it.
	I entirely accept that the language used by the commission in the passage quoted by the hon. Gentleman is not necessarily the kind of language in which he would talk to his constituents in the Dog and Duck, but I assure him that our objective is increasing participation and giving people choice, so that they can vote by a means that is practical and convenient to them. That will give us the best chance of increasing turnout, and ensuring that the sad decline in electoral participation that poses a real threat to the health of our democracy is reversed.

Points of Order

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware of a serious security lapse at Buckingham Palace this afternoon, when protesters gained access to the balcony used by the royal family. In the light of what is an extremely alarming development in the current security situation, Mr. Speaker, have you any information on whether the Home Secretary plans to make a statement to the House this afternoon or this evening?

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware of the incident, because I have been in the Chair. Nor am I aware of whether a statement is to be made.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the House confirmed today that we would be returning regularly in September as part of the programme of Government business. I wonder if you have had time to look at the staircase leading from just outside the Tea Room to the lower ground floor, and to establish whether it is safe.
	A good deal of the building has been cordoned off on health and safety grounds. Anyone visiting a building site in a similar condition to some parts of the Palace of Westminster would be issued with a hard hat. As far as I know, most Members have not been issued with such a hat.

Mr. Speaker: I make no mention of the House's decision to come back for a fortnight; that is up to the House. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am concerned about the fact that some parts of the Palace of Westminster leave a lot to be desired in terms of health and safety. It is not only the safety of Members with which I concern myself, but that of staff and visitors to the House—and, indeed, those who are working in this environment. I shall therefore invite my officers who are responsible to ask for a health and safety report on the situation around the Palace. I am certainly not happy that the situation exists, and I do not think that this is a good environment to invite people to enter. I look forward to answers to many of the questions that Members have raised.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Children Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Margaret Hodge: I feel very proud and privileged to present the Bill to the House. It is a year since we published our Green Paper "Every Child Matters", in which time we have engaged in extensive discussion and consultation on our proposals. We have listened carefully, and in some instances we have amended our plans to reflect people's views and concerns. I am delighted that our determination to place children and young people at the heart of our programmes has been so clearly demonstrated by the fact that 3,000 of the 4,500 responses that we received to the consultation came from children themselves.
	In the past year, we have also embarked on a wide range of programmes and activities to proceed with the programme of change. This is not about a quick political fix for the short term; it is a programme of fundamental reform involving the transformation of children's services, which will take time to deliver. If we are to succeed in our ambition, we need legislation to facilitate and underpin our reforms.
	The Bill provides the legislative spine for a hugely ambitious agenda. By itself it is not enough, but without it we will not succeed in the pursuit of our ambition to enable every child to realise their potential, or in our determination to secure a step change in how we safeguard and protect children. Our aim is to maximise opportunity and to minimise risk; to respond better to the additional needs of some children by ensuring that all our universal services respond better to the individual needs of every child; and to raise the importance of children and families on the political and public policy agenda by prioritising their needs and aspirations at Government, local government and community level.
	The reform agenda is driven by the outcomes that children themselves told us matter. We consulted them widely and they told us that they want to be healthy, to stay safe, to enjoy themselves and to achieve, to make a positive contribution to society and to achieve economic well-being. The centrality of these aspirations is reflected by their inclusion in clause 7. Those are broad and general aspirations, and translating them into objectives and priorities for action is critical, but we have started that work by developing public service agreement targets for the next spending review period across many Government Departments; by developing comprehensive performance assessment targets for local government; and through the national service framework for children's health services, which we will shortly launch with our colleagues in the Department of Health.
	I should point out how delighted I am that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for community, from the Department of Health, will wind up today's debate, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), from the Home Office, is also here to support it. That makes it transparent to the House that we are joining up across Government Departments to achieve our agenda for change for children.

Hilton Dawson: I join my right hon. Friend in praising the array of talent on the Front Bench, but regret that a Minister from the Department for Constitutional Affairs is not present. Will she assure me that the radical policies that this Government are putting in place—particularly those on schools and the devolution of power to them—in no way clash with the co-operative agenda that we are trying to establish to ensure that children's services are integrated and work well across the board?

Margaret Hodge: That issue was raised during the summer by a number of interested parties. Independence and interdependence are two key drivers of our reform programme, and the fact that the Minister for School Standards is here today, and that he and I have together written recently to all chief executive directors of education and of social services, demonstrates our determination to get schools strongly engaged in the agenda.

Andrew Turner: The right hon. Lady referred a moment ago to the aspirations contained in clause 7. Does she accept that they are best delivered and supported when children have access to both parents, even if those parents have chosen to live apart? What steps is she taking in this Bill to prevent one parent from unilaterally preventing their children from accessing the other parent?

Margaret Hodge: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have always said that in the tragic circumstances where parents separate, it is generally in the children's interests to maintain contact with both parents where it is safe for them to do so. That principle underpinned the Green Paper, published just before the summer recess, on these very difficult issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to that consultation process, and once we have consulted we hope to produce some clear propositions—both in legislation and in policy—to advance the agenda set out in the Green Paper.
	Two key policy principles underpin our approach in this Bill and in all else that we do. We want to reconfigure services around the needs of children rather than in the interests of traditional professional hierarchies, and we want to shift our effort to prevention and early intervention while at the same time strengthening child protection in all the services that touch children's lives. Nobody can disagree with our desire to refocus services in that way. We also know that those changes make sense in children's lives.
	We are beginning to garner strong evidence from some of the Government's most successful and innovative programmes to affirm our approach. For instance, evidence from local Sure Start programmes is beginning to tell a powerful story of how early intervention with services joined up around the needs of a child and their family can make a profound difference. In a Sheffield Sure Start, we have seen a 27 per cent. increase in breastfeeding rates among mothers. In a Sure Start in Whitehaven in Cumbria, 25 per cent. of known smokers stopped smoking during their pregnancy. In Scunthorpe, 56 people were helped into work in one year alone, while in the Sure Start in Church street, Westminster, library membership increased by 11.5 per cent. In Corby, the number of children starting school with a special educational need was reduced by 10 per cent., while in east Hailsham child protection re-registration rates are down from 8 per cent. of 0 to 3-year-olds to 3 per cent.
	Achieving that radical, whole-system reform of our services is, however, a mammoth endeavour. It requires genuine partnership across professional boundaries and a fundamental cultural change, which can be facilitated and encouraged through legislation, hence the Bill, and also depends on us employing a broad range of levers—from investing in training to promoting new leadership skills, from joining up funding at local authority level to joining up policies at central Government level and from being clear about the accountabilities and responsibilities of all those who work in the children's work force to being clear about the outcomes that we expect from all the services that we fund.
	Reforming children's services means that we must work in partnership. That lies at the heart of the Bill: we want to join up people around the needs of the child by making multi-disciplinary working the norm and reinforcing it through co-location and common skills and training.

Jonathan R Shaw: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of partnership and co-operation, but some concern has been expressed that the Youth Justice Board is not included on the list of organisations that should promote welfare. We know about the tragic circumstances of the deaths in prison of Adam Rickwood and Joseph Scholes, and it is the Youth Justice Board that decides where to place youngsters. Why is it not included?

Margaret Hodge: The Youth Justice Board, as with other organisations such as schools—someone is likely to raise the issue of general practitioners later in the debate—will have to work in partnership with other professions and agencies to secure the outcomes for children that we want. Simply placing a legal obligation on such bodies is not always the best means of achieving that objective. That is why I am talking now about the other levers. The outcomes that we want, the targets that we set, the training that we do and the leadership skills that we try to engender are crucial to ensuring joint working. I reassure my hon. Friend that I have regular and frequent meetings not just with the appropriate Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but with the Youth Justice Board itself to ensure integration. It is working with us very closely at the local level in the development of children's trusts and other partnership arrangements.
	As well as joining up people, we want to join up processes around the needs of the child by developing a common assessment and a common inspection framework and by developing new ways to enable professionals to share information.
	We want to join up the systems around the needs of the child, by integrated commissioning, supported by pooled resources in children's trusts. We want to join up strategies around the needs of the child by developing partnerships and accountability that reflect all that has gone before. We shall get that all right only if we make sure that children and young people's voices lie at the heart of our endeavour.

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister will know that the Opposition share many of the Bill's objectives, but she will be aware that Government Departments have not always been able to get the best out of computer technology. She describes a multi-agency approach, but will she clarify whether every single child in the country will be included in the register, or will it be only children who are deemed to be at risk in some way?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Lady is right to remind the House of the poor record of Government over many decades of launching and managing complex information systems. That is why the first rule in developing this system has been to keep it simple. We are also undertaking a long period of testing the feasibility of our propositions before taking the final decision on how to proceed.
	The system will include every child, for three reasons. First, we want every child to be able to access all the universal services to which they are entitled. Secondly, we want to shift the emphasis to prevention and early intervention. It is too late to put children on the list after their needs have been identified. That would run counter to the whole emphasis on the drive towards early intervention, which can only be achieved if we know about every child. Thirdly, the children who have additional needs do not necessarily need child protection measures or safeguards. Some 3 million out of the 11 million children in this country are in that position, and if we really want to identify them it makes sense to have a fuller register. I will deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed on that point, in the other place and elsewhere, later in my speech.

Tim Loughton: The Minister has just said that she wants to keep matters simple with regard to IT, and I wholly concur with that. Therefore, instead of trying to place all 11 million children in England on a single database, which the Information Commissioner has said would lead us towards a surveillance society, would it not be much more sensible to concentrate on the most vulnerable children—about whom we are all most concerned—and do a proper job for them?

Margaret Hodge: I have two points to make to the hon. Gentleman. First, the shift towards prevention means that we would need to define who would be placed on that database, and that would assume that we had already identified the additional needs of the children involved. We would be able to effect that sensibly only if we had knowledge of how every child responded to the universal services that are on offer. The assumption behind a more limited list is that someone somewhere else has made a decision about the additional needs of the child without the conversations that that we want to take place between professionals. We hope that the new system will enable such conversations to take place.
	Secondly, there is no way in which the Bill will increase surveillance, as the Information Commissioner suggests. We stand by the data protection regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to strike a balance between privacy for individuals and their families and safeguarding and protecting children. In the light of the many reports we have had on child deaths, it is critical that we grasp this opportunity to put right the failure of professionals to communicate with each other at an early enough stage about the needs of the child—a problem identified in all the reports—which then leads to things going wrong in the life of that child.

Hywel Williams: The Minister talked of "this country" earlier. Does she mean England, England and Wales or England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Given the nature of the Bill, it would clarify matters if she could explain what she means by those words.

Margaret Hodge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the fact that many clauses specifically relate to children in Wales and, indeed, involve the devolution of further powers on children's issues to the Welsh Assembly. When I talk about children, I speak about children in the round, but specifically about children in England where matters have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Where there are non-devolved issues, clearly I have responsibility for children whether they live in Wales or in any of the other countries of the UK.
	On our consultation with children and young people, I am delighted that we have set up the children and youth board to work with us. It will help us to find out the views of children and young people and reflect them in our work. Beyond that, however, we are creating an independent national voice in England: the children's commissioner, who will be a strong, independent champion for children. The children and youth board will play a key role in the appointment of the commissioner.
	I know that the principle of establishing such a commissioner has been widely welcomed but that some concerns remain about the detailed powers and functions. I shall deal with those. First, the Government are proud to have adopted the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We have reflected its importance by accepting an amendment that the commissioner "must have regard" to the UNCRC.
	We have also strengthened the independence of the commissioner by promoting changes that will enable the commissioner to initiate inquiries into issues raised by individual cases where they are of wider significance and where existing mechanisms are inadequate or inappropriate. However, I firmly believe that an entirely rights-based commissioner will not best serve the interests of children in England. We do not want the commissioner to get bogged down with individual complaints; we want the commissioner to have time to get involved, from the perspective of children, in the many issues that affect their lives—from the way in which the media portray young people to the way in which the Government promote healthy eating, and from how we tackle bullying to how we decide the rules on contact and access for separated parents.
	We must not set the commissioner up to fail. With the changes that we were planning in the other place, I believe we got the balance right, so we look to the House to restore that balance.

Phil Willis: I apologise for arriving late—the Great North Eastern Railway was running late today.
	We genuinely welcome the Minister's proposals, but is not there a contradiction in having an independent commissioner, with the Secretary of State retaining some powers, but ordering the commissioner to hold inquiries as to the Government's wishes?

Margaret Hodge: I do not believe that contradiction exists. Over time, there will inevitably be some individual cases of such importance and wide significance—although we hope not—that they warrant detailed inquiry and investigation. In those circumstances, I have no doubt that both the commissioner and the Government will agree that the individual case warrants such an inquiry. However, it is obvious to me that the person or office to undertake such an inquiry must be the children's commissioner, as children's interests will be at the heart of his or her responsibility, so we have taken that power in the Bill. After discourse between the commissioner and the Government, should the commissioner not want to pursue a particular inquiry, due to particular circumstances, I do not believe that the Government will be unreasonable in listening to the argument.

Anne Campbell: I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an excellent briefing from Women's Aid which expresses concern about the courts continuing to enforce contact with estranged parents even in cases where that parent has been convicted of violent offences against the parent with custody. Will the commissioner have any role in such things? Will any change to those provisions be made in the Bill?

Margaret Hodge: The commissioner will certainly have a role in commenting on the Government's proposals to deal with the extremely complex and difficult issues of access and contact between children and their separated parents, but the propositions that we included in the Green Paper that we published just before the summer recess go a long way to try to ameliorate the difficulties that people face. By trying to take more cases out of litigation and introduce earlier conciliation and mediation, we hope to make it easier for children to maintain contact with both their parents. Where mothers may have concerns about domestic violence, we propose to give the courts additional powers, so that they can consider how and whether access and contact should be maintained.

Tim Loughton: In response to the question from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), will the Minister confirm whether she intends to overturn new clause 2, which was proposed in the upper House with cross-party support?

Margaret Hodge: I confirm that I intend to propose amendments that would return us to the position that applied before the amendments were endorsed by the upper House.
	The other unresolved issue concerns the commissioner's role in relation to non-devolved issues. I am aware of the Welsh Affairs Committee report, and I have been involved in much work on this issue over the past year. It must be right that the new commissioner should report to this Parliament on non-devolved issues. However, there has never been any question of the Bill overriding the existing powers of the other commissioners. Our amendments in Committee will make it even clearer that we want to provide an additional direct route of influence in reporting to Parliament on the issues that affect children across the whole UK. On a day-to-day basis, we want children in other parts of the UK to be clear about the process. I believe that that can best be achieved by the commissioners working together, and we will legislate to remove any unnecessary barriers that stop that happening.
	The Bill will make a big difference to the lives of children and young people in Wales. Nearly a third of the Bill is specifically given over to that purpose. I have worked with my counterparts in Government and in the National Assembly to ensure that the Bill provides what the Welsh Assembly needs for everyone in Wales to continue to improve and achieve better outcomes for children in their unique context. In particular, the Bill will take an important step by transferring to the Assembly responsibility for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in Wales. That is a significant increase in the devolution of children's services and reflects the absolute dedication that exists in the Assembly Government to providing the best possible support to their children and young people.

Hywel Williams: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. As a matter of curiosity, will she tell the House what the commissioner will be called? Will he or she be the English commissioner, the English/Wales commissioner, the Wales/English commissioner, or perhaps the UK commissioner present in England, but not in Wales? I am sure that hon. Members would like to hear.

Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to suggest that the commissioner's title will create confusion, I am sure that he and I can have discourse in Committee to ensure that that does not take place; it is not our intention, and we will certainly listen to common sense on that argument.

Julie Morgan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the children's commissioner. I think that the whole House is pleased about that. Will there be one point of contact in Wales for all children in Wales to go to, whatever issue is raised?

Margaret Hodge: I know that many hon. Members think that that is how the commissioner should work, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the best practical way to ensure that children in Wales are not confused is for the commissioners to agree how they should operate through a memorandum of understanding or another mechanism. All hon. Members agree, as will be reflected in this debate and elsewhere, that we do not want Welsh children to be confused, but the way in which that happens in practice should be devolved to the commissioners themselves.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister tell me something about the appointment process and those who will be consulted? We know that the Secretary of State will appoint the independent commissioner, but Megan Thomas, the youth MP for Isle of Wight, has asked me why the children's commissioner cannot be elected by children.

Margaret Hodge: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like a postal ballot to be used for that election. We clearly want to engage and involve children and young people in the appointment, so the board is being established as a mechanism for doing that; I have made several statements on that. I doubt that an election would be the best way of involving children and young people, but I do not think that there is a difference of principle between the hon. Gentleman and me. If the children's commissioner is to be a powerful voice working on behalf of children, she or he will need the support of children themselves, so we need to find appropriate ways of achieving such support.

Simon Thomas: I listened to the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and thought that she was making a point against elections. The Children's Commissioner for Wales was interviewed for his job by children, so would that not be the best way to take the process forward in England?

Margaret Hodge: The Children's Commissioner for Wales was interviewed by not only children, but other people. We are considering the mechanisms that were used in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere to determine the most positive way in which we can engage children and young people in the process.
	I have already said that we want professionals to work better together. That is why we are creating directors of children's services, introducing an integrated inspection of children's services in every local authority area and enabling professionals to pool resources and budgets—that is all in the Bill. However, we want to go further. We want to reduce the bureaucratic burden on local authorities and stimulate better integrated planning and delivery of children's services. We will bring together planning arrangements, including education plans, into a single children and young people's plan to achieve that. I will table an amendment to that effect in Committee and we will review the need for a statutory plan after the first new plans have been prepared.
	Over the summer, some people argued that we should place legal duties on both schools and general practitioners to co-operate with other services, but I believe that that would be unnecessary and bureaucratic. GPs work under contract to primary care trusts and PCTs will be covered by appropriate duties. They will, no doubt, wish to use the contracts to bring GPs on board. There are those who fear that some schools will want to opt out of their responsibilities for all children, including the most vulnerable, but I think that such fears are unfounded. Higher educational achievement and the wider concept of well-being go hand in hand with achieving better outcomes for children.

Tim Loughton: We are also worried about the accountability of GPs, people with other health functions and schools. How will what the Minister said apply to independent medical practitioners and independent schools, for example?

Margaret Hodge: In both instances, it is not just through legal requirements that we will ensure the engagement of other professionals and institutions in children's well-being. As a result of the outcomes that we have set out, the inspection regime and other mechanisms including training and the common core skills that we expect all professionals to hold, we will ensure that all professionals and institutions will play their part in promoting the well-being and educational achievement of children and young people.

Jonathan R Shaw: In 2000, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health published "The Education of Children and Young People in Public Care", which proposed that all schools should have a designated teacher responsible for children in public care. How does the Minister reconcile that guidance with the report produced by the social exclusion unit in 2003, which said that the success of the designated teacher scheme was mixed or variable? Some schools are proactive and operate the scheme, but others do not. We should draw a line under current arrangements and say that all schools need to promote children's welfare by having a designated teacher—there should not be any that are separate from the scheme.

Margaret Hodge: By drawing attention to that issue my hon. Friend has shown that trying to provide a universal prescription for dealing with difficult problems through legislation or regulation does not achieve the objective of better outcomes for children. I genuinely believe that getting the integrated inspection framework right, setting the outcomes appropriately, stimulating a new style of leadership that promotes multi-agency working and providing training and education for professionals so that they can achieve common core skills are at the root of transforming the culture and will make inclusion and educational achievement the twin pillars of the Department for Education and Skills.

Phil Willis: How will it be possible to inspect against the background of a non-statutory or non-existent framework?

Margaret Hodge: In the current negotiations on Ofsted's new inspection framework we aim to ensure that the five outcomes in the Bill are a key area for inspection of the way in which education and other services are delivered to children in school. As that work progresses, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted that we will achieve our common objective.

Annette Brooke: How frequent will inspections be? If they take place every four years, it will take a long time to pick up any problems.

Margaret Hodge: I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that we do not want to make the burden of inspection unnecessarily heavy and bureaucratic in cases where we know that services for children are well delivered. Our review of Ofsted's new phase of inspection will put greater emphasis on more frequent inspection in cases where children's services or educational services in schools are not as good as they should be and less inspection in schools that are performing well in the delivery of traditional educational services and the wider services incorporated in the Bill. The principle of inspection in inverse proportion to success is employed and it has underpinned much of the work that we have done since coming to power in 1997.
	When we talk about planning arrangements and legal duties, it is easy to give the impression that achieving better outcomes for children is all about statutory services. Far from it—some of the most innovative and effective practice can be found in the voluntary and community sector. The voluntary sector has often shown both how we can deliver better, joined-up services that work and how we can shift to a more effective preventive set of interventions. Most of us have seen evidence of that in our constituencies, for example, in projects funded by the children's fund. We want to build on that.
	The Bill represents a strong vote of confidence in local government, but it is vital that we also create a framework and environment in which voluntary and community organisations can be at the heart of partnership working, so we are removing the barriers to the sector's greater involvement in service delivery. We want to ensure that the sector is fully involved in the planning and commissioning of services. We are developing with the sector a strategy for what we need to do at the centre to make things work both at national and at local level, and we are considering how we can support effective engagement at local level, build the sector's capacity in every local authority area and create better funding arrangements and communication processes.
	I have emphasised our desire to shift to prevention, but we also want to legislate to strengthen the way in which we protect children. We aim to create a duty on relevant professionals to safeguard children so that we learn the lessons of the countless tragedies and implement Lord Laming's recommendations. We want to create statutory local safeguarding children boards, so that people really do work together and produce appropriate practical solutions to safeguard children from harm. We want to strengthen the private fostering notification scheme, which is why we have said that we will create a statutory registration scheme, without further legislation, if the voluntary route fails better to protect that especially vulnerable group of children.
	We need to provide professionals with appropriate tools and support to work more effectively across agencies. We cannot legislate for culture change, but we can legislate to put the right support in place. That is why we are working, for example, on a common assessment framework to stop children and families having to tell and retell their story to every professional they meet; and why, drawing on what we have learned from our trailblazer authorities, clause 9 will enable us to put in place information databases—not as an end in themselves, but as a means and an effective tool to enable professionals better to work together. Time and again, I have seen reports on child deaths in which someone says, "If only I'd known others were working with the child, I'd have done things differently." We want to make things easier, although I accept that striking the right balance between the right to privacy and the rights of a child to be protected and safeguarded is a complex matter.

Julie Kirkbride: I think that I just heard the Minister say that the Government are still not minded to create a statutory duty to register private fostering arrangements, but remain willing to go down the voluntary route. What degree of success or lack thereof will she use to judge that approach? Surely it would be more straightforward simply to create a duty to register such an arrangement. In that way, we could monitor whether those involved are fit and proper persons to act as parents.

Margaret Hodge: Some make that argument, but we believe that we have to give a final push to the voluntary approach. Where we get local authorities to engage seriously in the effort, there is a massive increase in registration. If we adopt the other approach, we might create new ways whereby people slip through the net. In the Victoria Climbié tragedy, her aunt purported to be her mother; in such a context it is difficult to tell how anyone would have revealed anything that would have brought the child to the authorities' attention and put her name on a private fostering registration scheme, thus enabling action to be taken to ensure her safety in the home. Such issues are not easy to deal with. We fear that we will drive people underground if we do not use a voluntary approach.

Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system of registering child minders has corrected a markedly similar situation, in which all sorts of abuses were going on? The registration scheme has been widely accepted and upheld with almost no problems. What is the difference? What is the difficulty with private fostering?

Margaret Hodge: I have to say that even having a statutory registration scheme for child minding still has not brought into the open all the illegal child minding that continues to exist. That is one of our concerns, but there are other issues, which I hope we will discuss in Committee. We always have to balance the need to safeguard children against the desire to over-regulate. We have to think about the difference in the regulatory framework for private fostering and for other carers. There are complex issues around that, such as who is covered by the scheme and whether, for example, young people who come here aged 13 to 16 to go to a language school for a long period should be covered by a private fostering scheme. Those are not easy issues, and I hope that we can tease some of them out in Committee so that there is a greater understanding of what we are doing.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister is right to say that Committee discussion will be worth while, and the whole House will be able to be involved in trying to decide whether the balance has been struck appropriately when we come back on Report. There is no ideology behind this question; it is a straightforward point about practicality. How, and how soon, do the Government plan to notice the reduction in avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that is supposed to follow from the Bill, and how do they intend to monitor the improvement in well-being, wealth and welfare of children? Or will there just be action and no real measurement?

Margaret Hodge: Absolutely not. We want clear measurement of progress as we develop our reform agenda. The targets that we have set ourselves in Government were published alongside the comprehensive spending review in the summer and, together with the targets that we are currently negotiating in the public service agreement with local government and the relationship that we are developing with the voluntary and community sector, will enable us to start to flesh out in a real and practical way measures of improvement on which we hope to measure our success in pursuing our reform.
	Clause 9 will enable us to put in place information databases, not as an end in itself, but as a tool to enable professionals to work together. Striking the balance between the right to privacy and the right of a child to be protected is complex. We have said—I again give the House this assurance—that we will consult widely. We listened to concerns expressed in the House of Lords and amended the Bill to show clearly what information will be collected and that case details will not feature on databases. Our purpose is to make sure that children access all the services to which they are entitled and that professionals are put in touch with each other at an early stage.
	We all know that the most important people in children's lives are their parents. All our understanding confirms that parenting in the home is more important than anything else in influencing a child's outcomes. We are working to develop much better support for parents in that most difficult task of bringing up their children. Our efforts may be derided by some as nannying, but I challenge that. Parents want support, particularly at key transitions in their children's lives, such as when they come home from hospital or when they first go to nursery, and so on into the teenage years and beyond. However, I do not believe that it would be right to interfere and to criminalise parents for smacking, which is why we shall continue to resist a free vote on any amendment that would create a new offence.

David Hinchliffe: In two days' time, I suspect, this Chamber will be a bit busier with hon. Members than it is now, because we will be discussing fox hunting. Can the Minister explain to me the logic of our being allowed a free vote on fox hunting but not on something like the physical punishment of children? Surely, if anything is a conscience issue, that is.

Margaret Hodge: I know that my hon. Friend has fought long and hard on the issue and feels passionately about it, as do many other hon. Members in the Chamber. However, the Government have taken the view that, if we were to move to a total ban on smacking, that would create a new offence, which would not in any way support all the policies with which I prefaced my contribution, and through which we are trying to support positive and better parenting. Because we do not want to create a new offence, we felt that the amendments tabled by some Members in another place would have been an inappropriate issue for a free vote.

Peter Bottomley: I agree with the Minister on smacking, but I also agree with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Why cannot the right hon. Lady trust her Back Benchers with a free vote, to be convinced by the arguments?

Margaret Hodge: I assure all hon. Members that we shall continue to listen to the debate and, as in the House of Lords, we shall consider when and whether a free vote on particular amendments is appropriate. But the Government have taken a pretty clear view that in this contentious area we do not want to create a new offence, which we think will not support our determination to give parents better support in parenting their children in the home.

David Hinchliffe: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's giving way again. Bearing it in mind that a total of 12 European countries have managed to deal with the issue of removing the defence of reasonable chastisement, outlawing punishment and giving children equal treatment against assault, why is it so difficult for this country to do exactly the same thing?

Margaret Hodge: Interestingly enough, I met representatives from some of the countries that have completely banned smacking. Most recently, my hon. Friend brought somebody from Germany and somebody from Sweden to talk to me. The representative of one of the countries—Sweden, I think—told us that there was a long and slow process of reform, so I hope that the amendment moved by Lord Lester in the House of Lords, which takes us further in ensuring that the defence is not used in such a way as to give succour to people who believe that any form of abuse is allowable, is a welcome first step as we build a consensus. If my hon. Friend wishes to make progress, he needs to work with others to build a consensus in the wider community around a very contentious issue, which is seen to be an interference in the privacy of family life.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the campaign in support of getting rid of the defence of reasonable chastisement is probably the biggest coalition of voluntary bodies that there has ever been? It has the support of the Catholic Church, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the United Reformed Church—the list is endless. Does she agree that there is already a good deal of consensus?

Margaret Hodge: I accept entirely that there is a powerful coalition on the issue, but it is a coalition of professionals. We need to move beyond the professional consensus to an acceptance by parents, which I do not believe yet exists around such a complicated issue.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Margaret Hodge: One final time.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Would she please look further into the situation in Sweden? It is my information that way back in 1957 the Swedish Government removed at a stroke the equivalent defence of reasonable chastisement, and thereafter the smacking of children was criminalised.

Margaret Hodge: I will not do anything by strokes, but I will undertake to look further into the matter. The information that we were given suggested that Sweden adopted a gradualist approach leading to that reform.
	I said at the beginning of the debate that I am proud to bring the Bill to the Commons. In the Lords, it earned its deserved tag as the small Bill with a large heart. I am proud to be creating a children's commissioner for England, taking forward the most radical reform in children's services for a generation and laying the groundwork that will make it easier for professionals to work together in support of children, young people and families.
	The Bill is not the first step in achieving better things for children, because hard-working and dedicated people such as professionals and voluntary groups, parents, children and young people have already taken the first steps, but it represents a further unique and important step towards a long-term change that will give us better children's services, and I am delighted to move it on Second Reading.

Tim Loughton: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Bill. Since the announcement of Lord Laming's inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, we have been calling for many of the measures that the Bill contains. When Lord Laming reported last year, we offered strong support for urgent measures and welcomed many of the proposals in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", although we expressed concern about much of the missing detail.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House are familiar enough with the horrific events surrounding the death of Victoria Climbié, and we must not forget the 80 or so other cruel or unnecessary deaths of children each year at the hands of carers or parents that do not provoke the same publicity as the Climbié case. It is for Victoria Climbié and all the other victims of abuse—fatal or otherwise—and in the hope of preventing their numbers from being swelled in the future that we continue to give our support and co-operation.
	Herbert Laming made it clear in his report, which followed a succession of other depressingly familiar reports dealing with the deaths of children who had been failed by system, that this time things must be different, and that his recommendations could not, as he put it, be referred "to some bright tomorrow". Not one of the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children such as Victoria Climbié emerged from the inquiry with much credit. As Herbert Laming put it, bad practice can be expensive.
	The Bill is an opportunity to put that right, to join up all the agencies and individuals responsible for the welfare of children and, hopefully, to reverse many tarnished reputations and to give renewed hope to all the professionals in child care, social services and child protection who do their best for vulnerable children, often in spite of, rather than with the help of, the system.
	The Bill has made great progress in the Lords, and we welcome the constructive way in which the noble Baroness Ashton of Upholland responded to and accepted amendments from both sides of the House—although we hear that some of those amendments may now be overturned. I hope that that spirit of co-operation and flexibility from Ministers will endure throughout the Bill's passage through the House, in pursuit of our shared greater ambitions for children.
	Baroness Ashton introduced the Bill as
	"our vision to improve life chances for all children and young people, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable, including those who are disabled; those who are cared for by the local authority or are otherwise outside their immediate families; those who have experienced changes in their family circumstances, perhaps through bereavement; or those at risk of abuse or violence . . . We want to focus on better prevention so that support can be offered early, when it is needed, in a way that responds to the needs of children and their parents and carers."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1208.]
	We concur with those aims.
	My noble Friend Lord Howe agreed that the Bill represents a fantastic opportunity:
	"This is a Bill which is, at heart, about finding better ways of doing what we already do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1214.]
	That is true, and it is essential that we get the Bill right. Some of the more radical changes that the Government propose must be accompanied by as much detail as possible in the Bill itself, and their workability must be properly thought through so that as many people as possible who are involved in the area are taken along with them.
	We will table a number of constructive amendments in Committee in an attempt to add clarity to the Bill and to tease out the Government's thinking, not least on data sharing, on which their proposals are, at best, muddled and incomplete, and in relation to which we will introduce our own models.
	In welcoming the Bill, I also welcome the opportunity to debate issues concerning vulnerable children. I remind the Minister that this is our first opportunity to debate this important subject in this Chamber, in Government time, during this Parliament, despite the welcome creation of her role as Minister for Children. The joined-up approach in the Bill seems particularly important as we read today's headlines. The front page of The Guardian features an article about the deterioration in the mental health of our young people and children. The Sun carries a headline about the "sex time bomb" and discusses the considerable problems involved in sexually transmitted diseases and responsible sex education. Those issues must be considered in combination with the obvious cases of vulnerable children that the Bill primarily addresses.

Julie Kirkbride: One thing that was missing from the Minister's remarks about providing better services for children was the fact that they are often let down because social workers are undervalued and change jobs so frequently that there is no continuity of service among the departments in which they work. If vulnerable children are not readily seen by the same people, the simple fact is that no matter what institutions and mechanisms are put in place, they will not be caught by the Bill. I shall be interested to see what my hon. Friends and the Minister say about that in Committee.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is an aspect that we will certainly address and to which I shall turn later in my speech. We have many very good social workers. Although they are often the first people to have the finger of blame pointed at them, many do a fine job in very difficult circumstances. Because many vacancies have to be covered by agency staff, there is not the continuity of care towards cases for which one would wish. In every case I sat in on when I spent the morning in a family court in London recently, I found that the social worker involved was not the social worker who had initiated the case. Interestingly, every single one was Australian. Although exceedingly impressive, they will not be over here for long enough to see many of those cases through. That is part of the problem. We can change the structure and create new committees and titles, but that will not make a difference where it matters unless we have the people on the ground.
	The Conservatives take this issue very seriously. That is why over the past few years we have devoted official Opposition debating time to the subject of vulnerable children; have organised children's summits on the subject at Westminster; and have tackled related subjects such as the abuse of the internet by child abusers and paedophiles and the inadequate arrangements for promoting equal parenting as between resident and non-resident parents in the interests of their children. We are continuing to engage in wide-ranging dialogues and policy formulation with a large number of children's organisations.
	Before highlighting some of our concerns about what is in the Bill—or what remains outside it—I shall set out the guiding principles that we will apply in proposing our amendments. First, we echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness Ashton when she assured the upper House on Second Reading that the Government would be
	"prescriptive only where we believe that this is necessary to ensure accountability or to protect children's welfare."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1209.]
	It is surely right that, where possible, local authorities that are already doing good work in improving child protection should be able to continue to do so according to local structures and local circumstances. Local authorities are already bogged down by ill-thought-out and usually ill-financed Government diktats and do not need more of the same just for the sake of it. We welcome Government assurances that partnership working is at the heart of their reforms and hope that that will be borne out in practice. I give a particularly warm welcome to the Government's success in encouraging participation in this exercise by children and young people, who gave an impressive number of responses to the consultation.
	Our second guiding principle in assessing the Bill will be the basis on which it adds to quality outcomes. We can appoint as many children's commissioners or children's tsars as we can shake a stick at—apparently the Liberal Democrats want a children's commissioner for every region of England—and set up as many new committees and structures as there are bureaucrats to organise the paperwork for them, but in the end the Bill must be about protecting as many children as possible from abuse, and ultimately death, and promoting the life chances of as many vulnerable children as possible.
	This is not about ticking boxes to register the number of new officials who are given titles or the number of committees that they set up or meetings that they hold.

Hilton Dawson: Would the hon. Gentleman include children in custody in the category of vulnerable children that he mentioned? If so, what would he do to prevent them from dying there?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, for once without having a go at me, which is welcome. I am sure that that will come later. We shall discuss children in prison and in the penal system and table amendments on the subject. Recent developments in court cases have left a deal of confusion as between the responsibility of social services and that of the prison system for the welfare of children in custody. The Bill provides an opportunity for greater clarification, for which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will push in Committee should he be involved in those proceedings.
	My third point is that none of what we are considering can be achieved unless there are skilled professionals on the ground to knock on doors, investigate abuse and work with others to root it out. I fear that that is currently far from the case. Social worker vacancies remain worryingly high, especially in London and the south-east of England. Recruitment for social services staff has not been nearly as high a priority as that for doctors and nurses. The recruitment campaign launched by the then Secretary of State for Health—who miraculously reappeared in a Cabinet position last week—was not followed through, and we have yet to perceive any great results from it.
	A Unison survey of social services departments revealed a heavy reliance on agency staff and a high staff turnover, with 60 per cent. of departments saying that even if all the vacant posts were filled there would still not be enough social workers to manage the current case loads—before the additional work and responsibilities for which the Bill provides are introduced.
	Have some local authorities taken notice of events in the past few years? Last week, we read the worrying stories about Haringey, where it was discovered that 18 people employed by the social services department had criminal records. When the records appeared in Criminal Records Bureau checks, they were ignored in some cases and the people were still employed by Haringey social services department. Evidence has now come to light showing that one of those people was a convicted paedophile, who was given a job working with children with learning difficulties.
	Despite all the hot air and the supposed extra regulation from Government, the abuses continue. More worryingly, some authorities appear not to take them seriously. I hope the Minister will examine in particular the case I have mentioned, and will respond urgently to the parliamentary questions that I have tabled.
	We are also concerned that, although the Bill deals primarily with introducing new procedures and partnership working to protect vulnerable children, the media coverage—to wake the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) up—has focused entirely on the emotive subject of smacking, which this afternoon has threatened to lengthen considerably the Minister's opening speech. The Bill did not begin as a measure to legislate against smacking, and I hope that it will not be hijacked in this House as it was in their lordships' House. There are too many important issues at stake in the original measure. We shall doubtless be subject to a tight timetable—I hope that the Bill will not be derailed altogether by the latest posturing about fox hunting—and we should not allow valuable time to be diverted to debating smacking, rather than the wider issues of child abuse. I trust that hon. Members will adhere to that in Committee and during our doubtless limited time on Report.

David Hinchliffe: I think the hon. Gentleman was deliberately provoking me to intervene and I shall not disappoint him. He must be aware that at least one child a week in this country dies at the hands of parents or carers. That is at least 80 a year. It is a disgraceful figure and I do not apologise for concentrating on an issue—physical punishment—which, having been involved in child protection, I believe relates directly to the number of child deaths in this country.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on the solutions that need to be introduced in the Bill to attack child abuse. My point is that, although smacking may be part of that problem, it is an issue that threatens to overwhelm the whole of the Bill, and that we could lose valuable time which we desperately need to discuss some of the other details that need to be improved. The hon. Gentleman knows that, from the fact that there were virtually no media reports on the Children Bill until the amendments on smacking were discussed in the House of Lords. It would be unfortunate if that were to happen, as it would undermine much of the good work that needs to be done on the rest of the Bill. I need not talk about this issue at great length, because the Conservative party will quite rightly allow my colleagues a free vote on it, as we did in their lordships' House.

Jonathan R Shaw: What about the Adoption and Children Bill?

Tim Loughton: Well, we are talking about the Children Bill, and that is all I need say on the subject of smacking, other than to express my amused fascination at the way in which the Government propose to repeat their practice of allowing a free vote only on their favoured option—or, more bizarrely still, at the Liberal Democrats, whose policy is to criminalise smacking by parents but whose peers voted for another Liberal Democrat amendment on a so-called middle way.

Peter Bottomley: As Labour Members know, I supported the free vote option, but said to its organisers that I would not necessarily vote for the criminalising of smacking. When I said that I did not want ordinary parents criminalised for doing reasonably ordinary things, I was told that the Director of Public Prosecutions would ensure that there would not be any prosecutions. It therefore seems slightly odd to be pushing to incorporate such a measure in the Bill.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend may well think that, but I could not possibly comment. We shall invite contributions on the matter on Report, but I repeat my hope that it will not overwhelm the rest of the Bill.
	I should like to outline some of the specific changes that we want to make to the Bill. We support the establishment of a children's commissioner for England, and will therefore defend the new clause 2—we have now made it clear that we shall have to—which was passed in the upper House and which rightly seeks to give the commissioner proper teeth, rather than creating the feeble poodle that the Government originally sought to create and now seek to recreate.
	As I have said, the jury will be out on the creation of the children's commissioners until they have shown that they can have a real, positive effect on quality outcomes, but if we are going to the trouble of setting up such an office, for goodness' sake let us give its holder the proper powers to do the job properly, in an open and accountable way and independently of the Government. Under the original wording of clause 2, that would not have happened.
	The Children's Society has stated that the changes made in the Lords mean that we are now
	"much closer to having a credible and effective children's champion, independent of Government, as promised in the Green Paper . . . England's commissioner must not be the poor relation in all of the other three parts of the UK who have strong investigatory powers and duties to protect and promote the rights of children and young people."
	One young respondent to the consultation exercise asked:
	"What is the point in having a children's commissioner if they can't do their job properly?",
	and one Member of the upper House voiced a similar concern that the commissioner should not be "castrated". We shall therefore defend new clause 2, which I guess will take up quite a lot of the early deliberations in Committee.
	We also want to clarify the relationship between England's commissioner and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to establish a reporting mechanism to Parliament that is independent of the Secretary of State and has clear procedures for producing meaningful responses by the Government and other relevant parties. We shall also table amendments to clarify who is responsible for children normally resident in England but who receive education or medical treatment in, say, Wales—or vice versa. Cross-border responsibilities are far from clear in the Bill and, as Lord Laming made clear, it is imperative that the question of where those responsibilities lie and where the buck stops should be quite open.
	In relation to part 2 of the Bill, under the heading "Co-operation to improve well-being", we are concerned about the particular problems of children in care outside the responsible authority's area. The Minister has not touched on that point, and it did not really come up in the other place. Many hon. Members will be aware of the problems being caused by some errant young people being placed in small private children's homes far from their natural homes.
	Nationally, there has been an explosion of private children's homes. In 2002–03, 1,172 such homes were registered, according to the Government's figures. By the following year, that figure had leapt by two thirds, to 1,956. They are mostly small, containing six or fewer people—which allows them to get round the planning regulations—and many offer a good service. In my constituency, in Worthing, however, the chief inspector of police has told me that earlier this year, 23 per cent. of one month's crime figures were down to a handful of youths from private children's homes in our town.
	For example, one child in care in one of those private children's homes was supposedly responsible, over a period of between three and four years, for 66 calls to Sussex police regarding his activities, 38 recorded calls to Worthing police directly, had 12 recorded arrests in the town, was recorded as a missing person seven times, and since 2000, when he was aged 11—he is now aged 15—has committed one offence against the person, four offences against property, three theft and kindred offences, two public disorder offences, one offence relating to police and courts, and three miscellaneous offences. He also has a number of impending prosecutions. I fully acknowledge that that is probably at the upper end of the extremities in this regard, but it is very worrying.
	West Sussex calculates—it has no way of doing so officially, because there is no duty to notify when placing people in the care of another authority—that about 200 children are placed by other authorities in our county. That one individual to whom I referred has been a mini crime wave on his own. That is not to suggest that the vast majority of those children will go down that slippery slope, but some of them are doing so.
	The problem—which we need to see addressed—is the responsibility of the placing authority being properly recognised. It should be the responsibility of the placing authority, however distant it may be, to take responsibility for such children. In our case, however, which has been repeated up and down the country, it has fallen in the lap of the local police, the local magistrates court and the local social services, even though they have no duty of care or responsibility over that child. There is a problem with the line of accountability and where the buck stops—the issues that are dealt with in Lord Laming's report. The Commission for Social Care Inspection has at last been made aware of that problem, and we will table amendments urging the Government to adopt legislation to address it and to tackle the issue urgently, as it threatens to get out of hand in certain places.
	Under arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare, we want greater clarification on involving schools, as has been mentioned and presaged by the Minister for Children, as they are not named explicitly in the Bill. We would query the absence of explicit reference to schools and educational facilities in clauses 7 and 8. As the Local Government Association has said:
	"School staff are closer to children's social, emotional and educational development than any other professionals. Schools are best placed to provide hubs for the co-ordination of all services for children."
	We will also address, as the Minister again foretold, the problem with including practitioners of health authorities—because we do not feel that it is sufficient to say that a legal obligation is not the be-all and end-all, as she has said—and other health care professionals outside of normal trusts, given the increasing amount of health care provided by autonomous trusts and bodies. We also believe that the immigration service at ports of entry should sign up to that responsibility, particularly when dealing with the increasing problems of unaccompanied child asylum seekers and child trafficking, about which we are all concerned.
	The subject of databases will be one of the most problematic areas in the Bill. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, we believe that databases are necessary if the reforms are to be meaningful, but they are contentious and fraught with problems, and too much detail is still missing from the Bill. We welcome improvements instigated by my noble Friend Earl Howe in the upper House about standard criteria for how long information can be shared, and making sure that the information is accurate, for example. Currently, however, the Government are still leaving too much to as yet undetermined regulations.
	The Minister answered a query earlier in relation to whether there will be a national database to include all 11 million-plus children; whether it will be in place on day one, or how they will come to be included, we do not know. I fear, however, that she confuses appearing on a database or list with being able to monitor and address properly those children's needs. Again, I fear that it smacks—not a good word to use—of the tick-box approach.   
	Who will have access to the databases, national or local? Will there be common thresholds for all relevant professionals to trigger a reference to a database? What on earth does the woolly reference to "any cause for concern" in clause 9(4)(g) mean, and what basis has it in law? That question has been raised by a great many bodies.
	When will the Government be in a position to give fuller details of how the databases will work, given that many of the trailblazers are only part of the way through their assessments? Many, indeed, are in the middle of applying for second-wave funding, including mine in West Sussex. We are being asked, potentially, to write the Government a blank cheque on a highly significant issue within the next few weeks. Barnardo's has queried that, saying:
	"The clause as currently drafted may lead to the establishment of information sharing systems that fail to contribute to better outcomes for children and young people, and potentially leave vulnerable children at risk."
	It also says:
	The breadth of drafting of the clause may well lead to an overwhelming quantity of poor quality data, with professionals unable to identify those children in need of support."
	As I have said, there are particular problems involving the role of GPs and other health professionals contributing to databases in the light of confidentiality considerations. The Minister is well aware of that. The British Medical Association has said:
	"It would be a shame if, as a result of the provisions in this bill, vulnerable children were dissuaded from using vital health and social care services because they no longer felt that doctors and other health professionals could protect their confidentiality."
	Let alone all the other pressures on GPs, there are serious question marks over how they will fit into the whole mechanism.

Stephen Ladyman: Are not the issues the hon. Gentleman has raised just as significant whether we have a database listing only children at risk or a universal database?

Tim Loughton: No, because they will be replicated from an initial database that could consist of the 61,000 looked-after children, plus some others, in another requiring up-to-date information relating to more than 11 million children. Doctors will be required to give further details about their child patients, even if they are not concerned about child abuse or anything like that—simply because they change their address, for instance. I am alarmed that the Minister thinks that that could lead to anything other than an enormous multiplication of the amount of work that will be required of GPs, let alone everyone else.

Jonathan R Shaw: In his response to my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated how much ambiguity there could be if we referred to a particular group of children. He referred to children in care. We know about those children. The point is the children whom we do not know about. We cannot have any ambiguity if we are to do what the hon. Gentleman spoke of in his opening remarks, and not make the mistakes of the past.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that putting the names—and perhaps addresses and national insurance numbers: I gather that the Government may be thinking along those lines—on a database does not necessarily make the children any safer, unless means exist to bring about action for those who are genuinely vulnerable. It is the tick-box mentality that worries me most. Making a list does not protect children; concentrating on those who are likely to be most vulnerable, for a whole range of reasons, is much more manageable and practical if they are to be given the attention, care and protection that the Bill is surely all about.

Margaret Hodge: I was trying to avoid intervening, because many other Members wish to contribute, but there is a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the database. The database is merely a tool that will make it easier for professionals to take the action that they need to take. In no way does this constitute an action in itself.
	What will be shown on the database is this. If a professional has a particular concern about a particular child—we will discuss this in Committee—the concern itself will not appear on the database, but the fact that the professional has a concern will. If another professional were to have a concern as well, all that would be facilitated would be the two professionals speaking to each other and then taking the appropriate action to safeguard, protect and promote better outcomes for children.

Tim Loughton: The Minister has proved my point. It is the children who have triggered a cause for concern—as she puts it—and it is the mechanism by which that cause for concern is triggered that we need to concentrate on, instead of putting all children on a national database, which will do nothing to enhance the prospects of getting care for those in respect of whom a cause of concern has been triggered. This clearly shows that the Government have yet to decide on a great deal of the detail, and we and many of the relevant bodies are enormously confused about what this provision actually amounts to. I appreciate that the Government still have a lot of work to do, but we are being asked to write a blank cheque in the next few weeks for what is a significant and important measure.
	I shall not go into great detail now—I shall do so in Committee—but we envisage two models, the first of which concerns the local hub. If the relevant professionals—the general practitioner, the social worker, the teacher, the police officer and so on—have cause for concern about a particular child, they should be able to flag it up directly with the office of the director of children's services, and the information should be kept on a database. Where several professionals—or even just one—provide such information, it should be up to the office of the director of children's services to decide whether action is required. There would be a reporting mechanism, the practicalities of which we can talk about.
	Secondly, a national database is needed to deal with the transient child who, for example, leaves Dagenham and ends up in Worthing, where no data exist showing that there were suspicions that they were being abused, or being subjected to violence by someone in the domestic environment, or by others who were in charge. But that database need not automatically contain all 11 million children. It needs to be a mutual reference, so that when the child turns up in Worthing and comes into contact with social services, the police or the education authorities, those organisations can refer to the database if they have a particular concern. They could then be told that some information is available on that child, and that they need to speak to the director of social services in Dagenham, Barking or wherever it may be.
	We do not see why, in trying to concentrate on the most vulnerable children, it is necessary to clog up the system with all 11 million children. I look forward to debating in Committee the relative merits of our system and of the Minister's yet-to-be-formulated system. On the face of it, she is trying to create a surrogate identity card scheme. The suggestion of using national insurance numbers also gives cause for concern. That system is already greatly discredited—we have substantially more national insurance numbers than citizens in this country.

Hilton Dawson: rose—

Tim Loughton: I shall very generously—and perhaps for the last time, so that he can speak later—give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he not trying to create a system with holes in it? It relies on far too many subjective definitions and hardly caters at all for those who want to evade it and to hide the child's identity. Is he not being massively inconsistent in drawing attention—rightly—to the role that the immigration authorities should play in such a system, but then saying that the vast majority of children should play no part in it?

Tim Loughton: There is no reason why such a system should contain more holes than one that simply lists everyone who happens to be a child. We will need to continue this debate on Report, because I remain unconvinced. I began by saying that we support the idea of a database, but it needs to work and to benefit the people whom it is supposed to benefit. We should not simply create another database that involves sleepwalking into a surveillance society, as Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has put it. Setting up such a comprehensive national system would also lead to all sorts of problems with data protection; and key questions remain about security and who would have access to the system.
	I want to consider a final point on databases that the Bill has totally ignored. The system is completely one-sided and we will be looking to set up an appeals procedure. There seems to be no mechanism whereby a perfectly good parent or a professional against whom concerns have, for whatever reason, been wrongfully expressed can challenge the inclusion of information relating to the person on the database. Circumstances can change and vexatious complaints can be initiated by professionals against individuals. In the vast majority of cases I hope that that will not happen, but there are no checks and balances for the few cases where it will.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's assurances that our suggestion for proper checks and balances may not be necessary. However, I suspect that they will be—certainly they were in setting up the potential leviathan of the Financial Services Authority, which deals with all sorts of professional bodies. On the face of it, checks and balances are missing from the Bill, so we will propose amendments to rectify the difficulty. There should be a procedure whereby people giving rise to "cause for concern", in the Government's own terminology, should be able to challenge the veracity or continued relevance of the complaints rather than risk being fingered indefinitely.
	We will also propose some technical amendments about the running of the local safeguarding children boards. On the inspection framework, there is surely a greater role for children's services authorities in overseeing nurseries, particularly in view of recent revelations about abuses and the failure of the Ofsted inspectorate on its unannounced inspections. That is particularly important given the likely proliferation of such places in the future.
	On the duty of local authorities to promote educational achievement, set out in clause 44, it has to be said that the current circumstances are a scandal. I wholeheartedly concur with the intentions behind this part of the Bill. It is a scandal that only 44 per cent. of young people leaving care had gained at least one GCSE or GNVQ compared with 96 per cent. of all year 11 children at large. It is a scandal that as few as 1 per cent. of young people leaving care go on to university and that fewer than 6 per cent. go on to any form of further education—let alone all the other problems that they are likely to face by having to move schools more often than non-looked-after children and all the additional health problems that they are likely to suffer. Surely the placing authorities—social services departments—should be much more mindful of the desirability of stability and continuity in the school of an individual in care. All that is, indeed, a scandal.
	Too much of the existing guidance—on designated teachers and governors and proper educational plans for looked-after children—has been and is being ignored. There is no excuse for the social workers who are responsible for individual children in care not to attend parent evenings at school. They should be placed on the same basis as other parents who, to the great embarrassment of the rest of us, fail to attend such evenings.
	I also recognise that there are problems with admissions policies, but arrangements for accessing schools must not prejudice other children living with birth parents. The clause should deal with that problem. There must be equality of opportunity in education—the key to helping many vulnerable children.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right for the adjudicator to say to admissions authorities—independent or local authority schools—that children should be number one when it comes to the oversubscribed criteria? Is that right?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I do not necessarily agree with that. The mechanics of how to advantage looked-after children within the school system need to be thoroughly debated. I want to bring about a system in which looked-after children are greatly advantaged within schools. We must ensure that they receive the equality of opportunity within education that I spoke about earlier. I realise that that has been greatly abused and is likely to be even further abused in view of the greater independence that schools have for their admissions policies. [Interruption.] The potential is absolutely there. We have to find a balance between recognising the independence and autonomy of schools and ensuring that looked-after children are not left behind. It is not a straightforward matter.
	A child who lives with his birth parents could live next door to a foster child who lives with foster parents. If both applied to an oversubscribed school it might be more appropriate, for whatever reason, for the child with birth parents to attend it. Is it right to be discriminated against in order to promote the educational advances of the child in foster care? [Interruption.] That is precisely the sort of problem that the issue raises. I am not suggesting that I have the model solution to the problem, but we will need to debate the issue properly in Committee. It risks producing a considerable amount of prejudice among parents whose children miss out in relation to the looked-after children whom we desperately need to help to make educational advances. It is a contentious argument and, as the Bill stands now, we need to go into far more detail about how the policy will be carried out in practice. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) has admitted that many schools do not follow the procedures, so we must secure more consistency in that respect.
	Finally, the Bill does not make sufficient reference to the specific needs of disabled children and it makes no provision to ensure an assumption of reasonable contact between siblings who may be in care separately. Given that the Bill is about children, we will take the earliest opportunity to insert amendments to give non-resident parents a legal presumption of equal parenting rights, unless there is a particular threat to the welfare of child. Clearly, it must be in the child's best interests. Following our recent summit, Conservative proposals for the next election will—in contrast to the Minister's fudge in her Green Paper—deal with that scandal. Perhaps she will intervene to explain herself.

Margaret Hodge: I was bewildered by the later part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he saying that the Opposition believe that the interests of the child should not be paramount in decisions taken about access or contact, or is he saying that the interests of parents—in equal parenting—should have priority over the interests of the child? The two cannot go together. The hon. Gentleman has to choose between the one or the other principle.

Tim Loughton: That is complete rubbish, and the Minister knows it. There are no implications here for the welfare of the child being paramount, as she admitted herself at the beginning of her speech when she said that what is in the best interests of the child is to have the love and attention of both parents. At the moment, no legal right is enshrined for parents who are unfairly excluded from being able to be good and loving parents. That is the injustice that we want the Bill to deal with. The Minister has singularly failed on that with her ill-thought-out, half-fudged and half-baked Green Paper on the subject—it has been around for far too long—even though she was chased out of her burrow by our Westminster summit on the subject back in July.
	How will the Children Bill fit in with the long overdue national services framework for children, which I gather may be produced on Wednesday? On the subject of private fostering, we do not believe that the proposals are strong enough. One last voluntary push is necessary, according to the Minister, but how many last pushes do we need before we properly deal with those people who are cocking a snook at the law in private fostering arrangements? My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) mentioned that earlier.
	What account will the Bill take of the use of expert witnesses in care cases? The Government announced a review at the beginning of the year in the light of the Canning judgment, so how will the legislation impact on the qualifications of expert witnesses and their preparedness to come forward? We also have reservations about the timetable and accountability of children's trusts, on which the Government place so much expectation. As the National Children's Bureau queried, who will be accountable for the children's trusts? If children's services authorities are the governing bodies, how will clinical governance over health staff and their professional development be addressed?
	The timetable for children's trusts also seems to be getting pushed back. As last week's Children Now survey showed, fewer than two thirds of councils are working to meet the 2006 deadline to set up their children's trusts and 56 per cent. of councils have not yet started recruiting for a director of children's services. As one director put it, there has been an overemphasis on structural change, because it is the bit that people can get their heads around.
	Surely the preparedness of children's trusts and the close integration that they represent is key to the effective implementation of the Bill, and we will look for assurances on that point from the Minister.
	How will many of the Bill's provisions be funded, given the severe confusion and ensuing chaos over the funding of the many accomplished and relevant projects by the children's fund earlier this year? Many voluntary groups and projects operating on a shoestring are still worried about their future sustainability.
	As I said at the outset, we strongly support the Bill, but we think that it can be greatly improved to make it work better. We will seek to raise many of the issues that I have mentioned, and others, in Committee, and we will do so constructively, positively and flexibly. We hope that the Government will respond accordingly, as the urgent goals that we all wish to achieve on behalf of vulnerable children are too great to miss because of parliamentary niceties.

Win Griffiths: This wide-ranging Bill will be a landmark in the improvement of services, opportunities and protection for children. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing it, and the whole Government team who have worked hard on it.
	The first issue I wish to consider is the role of the commissioner for children. I rejoice that the Government have at last agreed to a children's commissioner in England. We have had one in Wales since April 2001 and I like to think that it was the work done in the Welsh Office from 1997 that enabled the National Assembly to push forward with the agenda for a Children's Commissioner for Wales.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that he was in fact the first ever children's Minister?

Win Griffiths: Well, I have to agree with that. I would even say that I am elated by the progress that we have made. Nevertheless, I remain worried about one or two aspects of the role of the children's commissioner. I am relaxed about how clause 2 has come to us from the other place. I concede the need for some fine tuning, but I would much rather have clause 2 as it is now than as it was when the Bill was first published. I hope that we will have an opportunity in Committee to make clear the role of the children's commissioner in England in respect of his or her responsibilities in Wales on non-devolved issues and how that will work with the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
	It is interesting that responsibility for CAFCASS has been devolved to the Children's Commissioner for Wales. If I were being cynical, I might think that that was because of all the difficulties that arose from the creation of CAFCASS and that the opportunity was taken to give someone else the responsibility of making it work properly, at least in Wales. I would dearly love to think that the commissioner in England would have the same powers—on matters relating to England—that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has on devolved matters. As for those issues that are not devolved and will therefore be the responsibility of the commissioner established by the Bill, there should be clear working arrangements to enable the Children's Commissioner for Wales to act as the representative of the commissioner created by this Bill, so that children in Wales will have a one-stop shop for their concerns. We should do everything possible to ensure that the commissioner for England will have an excellent working relationship with the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the concerns of the Children's Commissioner for Wales that his role is different from that proposed for the commissioner in England, whatever that commissioner will be called. How would the hon. Gentleman address the point about the credibility of the Welsh commissioner being undermined by a perceived lack of independence from the English children's commissioner?

Win Griffiths: We do not need to worry about the standing and the independence of the Children's Commissioner for Wales on devolved issues. I want to ensure that, when the process is complete, the commissioner in England, who will have responsibility for some non-devolved issues in Wales, has a similar role to that of the commissioner in Wales on devolved issues. For example, Government Departments in England should have the duty to respond within three months to commissioner recommendations, as happens in Wales. We will need to address such points in Committee and on Report. I hope that we will not see any diminution of the powers of the commissioner, as already expressed in the Bill. Indeed, perhaps the work of the commissioner in England and in other parts of the United Kingdom could be improved and strengthened.

Betty Williams: If that does not happen, does my hon. Friend agree that—as the Welsh Affairs Committee said in its report—linguistic issues or other non-devolved issues might not be resolved in respect of a child from Wales who is in an institution in England? If that happens, the only person to suffer will be the child.

Win Griffiths: Yes, and we must ensure that such issues are fully resolved in the Bill and that any commitments made by the Minister to issue guidance are met.
	The protections given in clause 8 should include refugee and asylum-seeker children. We should not stand by the reservation that we have to the convention on the rights of the child, because those children are already disadvantaged enough. We should ensure that they do not suffer further disadvantage while they—either on their own or with their parents—seek refuge in the United Kingdom.
	I may annoy the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) by discussing whether the smacking issue will hijack the Bill, but it has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I do not think that it will, and the issue should not be discussed in those terms. I believe that the issue of whether children should have equal protection to that which adults enjoy is fundamental to the issues that the Bill is designed to tackle. The whole problem of child abuse can be traced back to the way in which we have deeply embedded in our culture the right for parents and carers to smack their children.

Andrew Turner: Rubbish.

Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish, but the whole situation is Dickensian. The basis of the law on which we are acting goes back to 1860, a time when it was considered normal to beat children until they bled. We have come a long way since then, but the right to smack is still deeply embedded in our psyche.
	I take that issue very seriously. The clause 49 compromise in the other place is inadequate.

Andrew Turner: On consideration, does the hon. Gentleman not think that his description diminishes the suffering of some of the children whom the Bill is designed to protect? The suggestion that, for example, Victoria Climbié's suffering was something to do with legislation on smacking children is completely absurd.

Win Griffiths: It is not completely absurd. Because of the defence of reasonable chastisement, smacking has been too easy. There was even a court case in which beating a child with the bough of a tree was considered reasonable chastisement in the circumstances. The important thing is that we give children equal protection with adults and that we outlaw smacking. That will begin to attack the idea that parents can smack children in such ways. Only a minority may do so, but none the less 80 or more children are killed every year in circumstances that relate to our allowing ourselves to think that it is okay for parents and carers to smack children.
	We do not think that it is okay for parents and carers to smack adults in comparable circumstances; that would be brawling, affray or grievous bodily harm. When adults knock each other about, there is a gamut of offences to deal with it, yet under our current law children can be hit.

Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend recall the chilling words of Carl Manning, the murderer of Victoria Climbié? He was reported as saying that she could take a beating like anything.

Win Griffiths: We need to keep reminding ourselves of such awful things, because children are legally being hit. A recent Government-sponsored survey showed that more than 90 per cent. of children were being hit regularly—nearly half were being hit weekly and 35 per cent. were being punished in a manner that their parents or carers thought severe. It is incredible to think that 75 per cent. of the mothers interviewed for that survey had smacked their baby in the first year of its life. Those are terrible things and we need to act positively to get rid of them.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that quoting Manning's words—as our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) did just now—in the horrendous case of the abuse of Victoria Climbié and making a comparison between that and a gentle tap on the back of the legs of a two-year-old just will not chime with the general public?

Win Griffiths: I shall come to that point shortly. I agree that there is a huge difference, but perhaps we are afraid to face up to the facts, and we need to do so. I have already mentioned that our law is based on an archaic judgment made in 1860. We must also remember that there are specific human rights obligations to which we must adhere; for example, we have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. On several occasions, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has put it to our Government that we need to amend our law, as we are not treating children properly. Not only international bodies, but almost everybody involved in child protection and the care and promotion of children's rights, whether professionals, voluntary bodies or others with an interest in children—more than 350 organisations—backs equal protection for children. We need a legal framework to change our culture of hitting children.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact that such changes had taken place in Sweden over a long period. When the Swedes made it illegal to hit children the majority of people surveyed at the time were against the law, yet now only 6 per cent. of parents still want the right to smack their children. That shows how important it is to get the legal framework right. We need that cultural change.
	We must also give much greater priority to provisions for positive parenting. Many parents have already come to the conclusion that it is wrong to smack their children and have found other ways of disciplining them. By getting rid of the defence of reasonable chastisement, we would be taking a major step forward in the push for positive parenting.
	We know that such reforms work. A dozen states already have commissioners and there has been a huge improvement in the situation in Sweden, where the legal framework has existed for the longest time. We should draw something positive from that and take steps today. Sensationalising in papers such as The Sun should not fool us. Recent opinion polls suggest that people will support equal protection for children—more than 70 per cent. in a MORI poll. It was interesting that 76 per cent. of under-24-year-olds wanted equal protection; for women, the figure was 73 per cent., while for parents it was 74 per cent. The Government have a sound basis for making such provisions. A Populus poll showed that a majority of young people wanted equal protection for children.
	We should support an amendment to give equal protection because it is right. I was a bit chilled to be told that we would not be allowed a free vote on that issue. As a parent, I made the decision many years ago not to chastise our children physically and managed to keep to it. Both my children are well into their 30s and neither can recollect ever being hit—although they can remember times when I exploded. However, we managed and we can all manage. As a child, I received some hefty beatings and some people may see that as a good reason to abolish physical punishment. Although I do not feel permanently scarred by that process I still believe that giving equal protection is far better.
	Finally, I turn to some issues to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham alluded—personnel and finance. If the Bill is to work properly, substantial extra finance will be needed and much will have to be done to encourage people to move into work relating to children. Such workers have taken so many knocks recently that it will not be an easy job.
	I wish the Bill well. I shall not be able to support every aspect of it. From the sound of things, I shall not be able to support some of the amendments that the Government will table, but I am fairly sure that whatever the state of the measure at the end of the process it will be far better than what we have at present. I shall be happy to support it in that context, although I hope that what I have spoken about today will come to pass so that I can be deliriously happy when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the Members of the other place on their assiduous work on the Bill. They certainly spent many a long hour on it. I particularly mention those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—Baroness Walmsley and her team. As I read the lengthy passages in the Lords Hansard that cover the deliberations on the Bill in the other place, I was struck by the thoughtfulness and responsiveness of the Minister there throughout, so I am disappointed that the Minister is missing from the Chamber now. The cross-party approach on many aspects of the Bill is to be highly commended and has resulted in great improvements in the Bill. I hope that we will work cross-party throughout the Committee to improve it further.
	Although the Government may feel that the time spent on the Bill in the other place provides an excuse for allocating such a short time for the House to scrutinise it, the Liberal Democrats believe that a wide range of important issues still require detailed debate, especially if another 15 years pass before there is further major legislation on this issue. We support the Government's aim in introducing the Bill, and look forward to making positive contributions to ensure that the legislation will indeed improve children's lives and help to enhance services and support for all young people. Indeed, I hope that we achieve what the Minister outlined: a true transformation in services—over time, of course.
	We strongly endorse the aim of achieving the five outcomes for children, as outlined in "Every Child Matters": being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and economic well-being. It is interesting to see how those outcomes were expressed on Second Reading in the other place and how they have been amended. Education and training did not seem to match with enjoying and achieving, and we welcome the inclusion of recreation.
	We also welcome the inclusion of emotional well-being, along with social and economic well-being. Staying safe, of course, involves a proactive, preventive agenda, as some hon. Members have mentioned today. However, we share the Children's Society's concern about how the achievement of those outcomes will be measured. We also believe that equality of opportunity should be considered within the outcome framework and hope that the Government will address that issue. Gaining access to important services is likely to be far more difficult for those with specialist needs.
	It is heartening that clause 45, on ascertaining children's wishes, was introduced on Report in the other place, but it is worrying that it was not at the heart of Government thought and included earlier. Even so, despite the Minister's words, insufficient emphasis seems to have been given in the Bill to listening to children and taking on board their views and experiences, which must be seen as important in the context of evaluating the outcomes and, of course, in all the processes. That reminds us that no one appeared to ask Victoria Climbié her views and feelings about her situation.
	I recall that, long ago in the Fred West case, early clues were missed because children were not fully listened to. That has happened time and again. We have missed vital clues and we need to put more emphasis in the Bill on that aspect of listening to children. The Children's Society calls on the Government to take the opportunity of the Bill to place a new duty on local authorities actively to seek the wishes and feelings of all children about whom there are child protection concerns. I hope that, when the Minister returns, we will have some idea about whether that is being considered.
	A strong, independent champion of children's rights was needed and we particularly welcome the establishment of the children's commissioner. That was a proposal in the Liberal Democrats' general election manifesto for 2001, so we are delighted that, yet again, the Government will implement one of our policies. Of course, we acknowledge that Wales has had a children's commissioner since 2001, and we are lagging behind Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	We read the first proposals put before the other House with great disappointment. The cross-party approach there resulted in the now proposed commissioner for England. At least that bit has been endorsed today, and while I am pleased about that, what I am really pleased about is the fact that the commissioner will be firmly based on the rights of the child and reflect the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We certainly would strongly oppose any move by the Government to reverse any of those key changes. We have heard some strong hints today that there will be attempts at reversal. I accept that further clarification is probably needed with regard to the interaction between the four commissioners in the different parts of the UK and look forward to debating that in Committee.
	We should like some further amendments to be made, particularly in relation to the Secretary of State's power to direct the commissioner to hold an inquiry. We think it important that the children's commissioner is truly independent of the Government. Of course, the commissioner can always consider a request, but it is important that the commissioner has discretion. A cynic might feel that the Secretary of State—a future one, of course, I am sure—might keep the commissioner so tied down with directed inquiries that the commissioner would have little time left for the priorities, perhaps set by children.
	On Third Reading in the other place, the Minister indicated that there might well be a Government amendment relating to the requirement on the Government or others to respond to the commissioner's recommendations. We would greatly welcome that. A requirement for some longer-term monitoring on whether action has taken place and its effectiveness would also be positive. A few other issues were not fully answered during that debate and we shall return to them in Committee.
	Concern continues to be raised that schools have not been included in the list of partners who will have a duty to make arrangements to co-operate and to improve children's well-being under clause 7, which is about strategic functions. I can understand the argument for including only local education authorities, but independent schools, city academies and city technology colleges have very limited relationships with current LEAs and the new funding arrangements currently under discussion will further reduce links between schools and LEAs. That issue must be revisited, although we must also be mindful of the extra duties placed on schools. We welcome the proposals on extended schools because they will provide vital further opportunities to support children and families.
	As other hon. Members have said, it is important that all children who live in this country are eligible for the same rights. The children of refugees and asylum seekers should have the basic human rights afforded to all children in this country.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady referred to extended schools, and there are certainly some imaginative proposals. She says that she supports those proposals, but does she think that local or national taxpayers should pay for them?

Annette Brooke: I see schools in the context of the LEAs, and I will look in great detail at where the funding streams will come through to LEAs, but we favour local decision making in implementation.
	Refugee children were identified as those in greatest need in "Every Child Matters", yet amendments proposed in the other place were resisted. We certainly wish to revisit some of the discussion. We welcome the fact that, under clause 8, the relevant agencies that provide services to children will have a duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare, but we feel that the relevant agencies must include those responsible for immigration detention centres where children are held, the National Asylum Support Service and those who deal with refugee children at ports. That is urgent, given the concerns about trafficking and the rise in the number of refugee children being detained.
	The detention of children will always raise serious child protection concerns. In 2002, the view of the inspector of prisons was that
	"the positive development of children was compromised by the secure nature of the facility"—
	Dungavel—
	"and the uncertainty surrounding the length of stay".
	She made various recommendations on immigration removal centres, with further recommendations in 2003. What progress has been made on their implementation? In a reply to a recent parliamentary question, I was told:
	"The Immigration Service does not routinely collect data on children arriving in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 19 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 74W.]
	I know that several measures have been introduced recently to ensure that such children at risk are identified, but surely we must have comprehensive data on children who enter the country because, if we do not, the situation will not fit with the other proposals in the Bill.
	I welcome the fact that youth offending teams and governors of prisons and secure training centres are included under the new duty to safeguard and promote welfare, but it is clear from the number of tragic suicides of young people in custody. Between 1990 and the present day, there were 186 self-inflicted deaths among under-21s in prison. How does that make us feel about our society and the system?
	Recent statistics show that the number of children assessed as vulnerable and remanded in, or sentenced to, Prison Service custody in 2003–04 was 3,337, which represents a massive increase from 2000–01 when there were only 432 such cases. The recent death in custody of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood highlights the tragic situation that can result from that. I know that the Government have indicated their intention to legislate on youth justice sentencing in "Youth Justice—The Next Steps" and "Every Child Matters: The Next Steps", but the new safeguarding framework in the Bill offers us the opportunity to address concerns about vulnerable children who are sentenced to, or remanded in, custody now—before more of them die.
	The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children raises the important point that the Bill does not adequately address the educational attainment of children in prisons. We know that children in the secure estate have low educational attainment because recent research shows that such children of school age have literacy and numeracy levels below those of children aged 11 and that more than a quarter have a level equivalent to that of an average child aged seven or younger. We also know that educational standards have an impact on reoffending rates, so addressing that matter in the Bill would be a positive step.
	Tackling housing need is central to the welfare of children. Shelter calls for the Bill to go further in two key respects by suggesting that
	"Housing need should be included among the key factors to be considered in promoting a child's well being; and  . . . Action should be taken to ensure that children's services authorities  . . . fulfil their responsibilities to homeless children under the Children Act."
	I have long been worried about how well councils—especially when different councils, such as county and district councils, are involved—ensure that housing and social services work together. I know that there are excellent examples of good practice, but it is easy for things to go wrong if those services do not work well together. Is the Minister considering issuing supporting guidance on housing?
	We welcome the additional detail that is now provided in clause 9 because we could not have supported the original clause 8 given that its total lack of detail made it a blank cheque. We support the principle of a simple database with objective data. In the case of Victoria Climbié, a simple database would have shown that she was not attending a school. We appreciate that achievements can be made, but we need to know more about the details. Will the database be local, regional or national and will it have a relationship with existing databases?
	There remain questions about the proposed flags of concerns on a child's record in the proposed database. The suggestion in the other place of finding an alternative name for those does not overcome our fundamental objections. Different professionals will have different thresholds of concern and, despite the probing amendments moved in the other place, the Government have not produced a more detailed definition of a "cause for concern". Confusion could result from different interpretations of the term. It is possible that those who work with children will tend to flag every minor concern rather than risk accusations of negligence. If the system constantly delivers alerts for trivial issues, any urgent intervention required might be obscured because people cannot see the wood for the trees. Children already at risk of harm might be overlooked.
	It is important for different agencies to communicate clearly with each other and to take effective action. The database may be a tool, but it will not be a substitute for professional work. It is estimated that there is currently a shortage of some 2,000 children's social workers, but we must have well-trained social workers. I am aware that funding is available for training at present, but will the Minister assure me that funding streams will continue year on year to ensure that social workers and partners receive support for professional development and multi-agency work in all areas of child protection? All too often, the Government start something and do not continue it. At the moment, local authorities have money for training, but what will the situation be in five years' time? We must plan ahead.
	One thing that could be useful would be if sufficient funding were provided for outreach work to access vulnerable families, rather than waiting for vulnerable families to access services: that would mean that people did not become aware of their social services only when they were in difficulty. People involved in the trailblazer pilots made it clear to me that knowledge about, and confidence in, the levels and types of data that may be shared under existing legislation was important.
	We share the worries of several organisations about the implications for children of having service contact details on their records if the nature of the services that they have accessed automatically infers private and confidential details about their personal situations. Such an inference could be drawn from children accessing HIV, sexual health or abortion clinics, or drugs services. It is critical to ensure that there are tighter access restrictions on details about such sensitive services, because neither parents nor children must be deterred from seeking help or advice. Clarification is needed on how risks to children caused by inappropriate access to data will be prevented.
	We are told that consultation is taking place on such matters, and that guidance will be published in due course, but we need more details before the Committee stage. Who will see the database? Who will update the data? Who will remove data when they are out of date, and for how long should they be kept? Where will responsibility lie? And how will common standards be met throughout the country? There are matters relating to voluntary sector organisations now. They are signing service level agreements with local authorities now, and given that there is an assumption that everything in the Bill will go through, they need to know what will happen regarding the data.
	I welcome many aspects of the Bill. I am pleased that there is confidence on both sides of the argument that we can change the structure of integrated services while maintaining sufficient accountability. There are questions about how the money will work out for children's trusts and how health priorities will match up with other priorities. A point has been raised with me about the ring-fencing of money for children's services. In my part of the country and throughout the south-west, money invariably has to be poached from adult social services to prop up the children's services budget, so what will happen when insufficient money is available owing to the ring-fencing of money for children's services? Given that the problem is widespread, that is an important consideration.
	On private fostering, there is widespread agreement among interested organisations that proposals to amend the existing notification requirements do not address the failings of the current system. Rigorous standards apply to children in day care and to children accommodated by local authorities. However, the system for private fostering only requires the local authority to be notified of the arrangement, and does not require its approval. Once again, we must ask why there is not a compulsory registration scheme, as there have long been concerns about the system of notification. A register of suitable private foster parents would enable the designated local authority official to provide information to parents about the suitability of a prospective private foster carer based on a minimum set of standards, including the question of whether they had been police-checked or had had any of their own children placed in local authority care. Privately fostered children and their parents must be afforded the same standard of safeguarding as children who are looked after by child minders or accommodated by the local authority.
	Looked-after children are a particularly vulnerable group and, as we have heard, the current guidance requires schools to take certain action. The Government's own reports, however, show that the impact of the designated teacher scheme is mixed. Some schools allow non-contact time for designated teachers to liaise with other agencies and to attend planning and review meetings, but others do not. It is more appropriate to place a statutory duty on schools and governing bodies than to rely on further guidance. As an aside, Baroness Ashton, the Under-Secretary for Education and Skills, said in a debate in the other place:
	"If children do not have a supportive environment with opportunities to learn and to use computer equipment . . . they can be disadvantaged."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 1490–91.]
	It has recently been drawn to my attention that a grant available for a two-year period that has enabled councils to purchase computer equipment for looked-after children has come to an end, and does not appear to have been replaced with other funding. I would be grateful for clarification on that important matter—I am sure that no one in the House wishes to cut back on significant support at a time when we are saying that we will give more support to vulnerable children.
	I am anxious about unreasonable chastisement and, although I welcome the Bill overall, I believe that it should be amended to give children the same protection in their homes as adults are afforded under the law on assault. I believe that the amendment introduced on Report by Lord Lester attempts a legal definition of ways in which children can continue to be assaulted, which sends a dangerous message to society about the acceptability of violence towards children. Children who witness or are recipients of violence are likely to repeat that behaviour at other times and in different settings. There is obviously a lack of clarity about what is acceptable: some people bruise more easily, for example. There is also the problem of different coloured skins and the concern raised by a child protection police officer that regular physical punishment may not leave obvious signs on a child's body. Constant severe punishment may be a great cause for concern, but it is not covered by the amendment if it does not leave a mark on the child's body. I accept that the amendment deals with mental harm, but how on earth do we measure such harm or judge its severity?

Adrian Flook: Is the hon. Lady speaking about that provision in a personal capacity or as a party spokesman? If Lord Lester's amendment were before the House of Commons, would she support it?

Annette Brooke: Obviously, I am speaking as party spokesman. Personally, I believe that a great strength of the Lords is the opportunity that it provides for genuine discussion and debate of different ideas—whereas Members of the main parties in the Commons may prefer not to engage fully in the democratic process, and that is particularly true if a free vote is not allowed on this issue.
	Removing the defence of reasonable chastisement would send a clear message to the effect that children are equal in law, and it would make it easier for children to identify abusive behaviour towards them. We have an opportunity to initiate a change in culture. We would expect attitudes and behaviour to change slowly over time, as happened in Germany. We should certainly welcome the chance to introduce more family support services, more positive parenting messages, the promotion of non-violent discipline and a cultural shift in child-adult relationships. If we think that nothing should change in our attitudes, why—and I am delighted that this should be the case—is it that domestic violence is no longer acceptable? Attitudes change, and I remind the House that I spent a lot of time trying to prevent a kiss between two 13-year-olds from being viewed in a criminal context. However, it was decided for the greater good that that provision should remain in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	Finally, I re-emphasise the fundamental importance to the Bill of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, as it sets a clear, critical standard for the way in which children should be understood, respected and treated. The United Kingdom has been a signatory state to the convention for well over 10 years, and it should be applied throughout the Bill, covering everything from the duties of the children's commissioner to the disciplining of children. Both local and national Government should be accountable, and all Government Departments should comply with the convention, especially when new legislation and policy are introduced. Why cannot child impact statements be produced for all legislation? If we comply without reservation with the UN convention on the rights of the child, all children will matter in our country.

David Hinchliffe: I strongly welcome the broad thrust of the Bill, which has been introduced in the wake of Lord Laming's important report on the tragic case of Victoria Climbié. Interestingly, that report made it clear that the basic statutory framework of children's provisions in the Children Act 1989 serves this country well. I was proud of that assessment, because I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Act, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for listening to Members of all parties to ensure that it was a positive piece of legislation. I hope that the present Government will listen to Members from all parties, including their own, to improve one or two parts of the Bill.
	The Bill needs to be seen in the wider context of Government policy on children and families. I praise the steps that, for example, the Government have taken to address child poverty. Their measures to address levels of child benefit have been crucial in tackling serious poverty among children and families in various parts of the country. I hope that they will learn the lesson that the concept of universality is relevant to other policy areas such as the pensions system, where universal benefits and clawback through the tax system will help us to address poverty, which we are not doing sufficiently at the moment—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I hope that I will hear "Hear, hear" from Labour Members as well as Liberal Democrat Members.

Hilton Dawson: Hear, hear.

David Hinchliffe: I thank my hon. Friend.
	I commend the Government on their development of preventive measures in child care. One of my worries about the 1989 Act is that its provisions on prevention are, for various reasons, not as effective as its other provisions. I very much welcome the Government's emphasis on Sure Start.
	I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), a former Secretary of State for Health, who was involved in Home Start, which had and continues to have a major impact in my constituency. Sure Start has built on many of the positive outcomes of the Home Start experiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that we have to see the legislation in the context of positive parenting. Clause 49 is crucial in that respect.
	I commend the Government on their attempts to achieve joined-up thinking. In the week when the national service framework is to be published, I thank Al Aynsley-Green, who has led the work on the NSF, for his inclusive approach. He has listened to a range of people voicing views from a range of perspectives. I am sure that the outcome will be positive.
	The improvements that we have achieved in opportunities and attainment in the education system relate strongly to disadvantaged youngsters. I see that in my constituency. It is especially welcome that the Bill creates a duty to promote educational achievement among looked-after children. When, some years ago, the Health Committee carried out an inquiry into looked-after children, all of us were surprised to learn that the most common concerns felt by the children in the care system from whom we took evidence were not about the care system, but about the education system and their experience in schools. Especially since the creation of a more competitive environment in education, in which schools look to league tables and results, disadvantaged youngsters are often regarded as holding schools back. I therefore welcome the provision in the Bill. My only concern is that perhaps the duty should be placed on schools rather than only on local education authorities, given that it was at the level of schools that the children in question expressed that concern to us.
	I welcome the proposals on structural change, improved accountability and communication, and joint working. The integration of children's services is common sense, but I am concerned that the model adopted might vary from area to area. People who are involved in child protection and who need to contact colleagues in other parts of the country might find that difficult if the structures adopted elsewhere are different from the model in their own area, with which they are familiar.
	The Government are right to put local safeguarding children boards on a statutory footing. I was surprised to learn that area child protection committees are not a statutory requirement; they apply in my area and in others and I had assumed that they were required by law.
	I welcome the proposed framework for registration of private fostering, but I remain frustrated, because it seems that we have not yet got a grip on that issue. I share some of the concerns raised by colleagues and hope that, in Committee, we will consider a serious approach to the matter, which has been the cause of immense concern for many years. Successive Governments have failed to act in as positive a fashion as they should.
	The introduction of a children's commissioner is of fundamental importance and long overdue. I do not wish to contradict the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), most of whose comments I agreed with, but the first party commitment on the introduction of a children's commissioner came from the Labour party at least 10 years ago. I know because I wrote, or at least I was responsible for, the policy document that included the commitment. However, I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats picked up on it and that the Government are now doing something about it.
	As I said, the measure is long overdue. The Health Committee has recommended the establishment of a children's commissioner in two separate inquiries. I welcome the way in which the Lords have strengthened the provision, and I will be concerned if in Committee or on Report the Government row back on what appear to me to be very sensible amendments made in the other place, especially the requirement that the commissioner must have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child. I remind colleagues that the Conservative Government signed up to the UN convention, presumably in the knowledge that doing so had implications for key areas of policy in this country such as reasonable chastisement. We were all well aware of that at the time. I am therefore concerned that the Conservatives do not appear to be getting a grip on the issue as I hoped they would. As the party that, rightly, signed Britain up to the convention, the Conservatives seem to me to have a vested interest in ensuring that we deliver what the convention requires. I am sorry that they are finding the question of reasonable chastisement rather difficult.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. He spoke with passion and great common sense and I entirely agree with every word he said. The Bill as amended in the Lords keeps Britain on a collision course with the UN committee—it resolves absolutely nothing. My hon. Friend pointed out that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had referred to the matter. In October 2002—not long ago—the committee reminded the UK of previous recommendations to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, stating:
	"The committee deeply regrets that the state party persists in retaining the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' and has taken no significant action towards prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in the family."
	The committee criticised the proposals to limit the defence that we see in the Bill, having been introduced by Lord Lester. The committee called, first, for the prohibition of all corporal punishment; and, secondly, for the promotion of positive non-violent forms of discipline.
	I echo my hon. Friend's comments on positive parenting. Those of us who believe passionately that the law must be changed accept entirely that a programme of positive parenting must accompany the change in the law. We have to help people to deal with the most difficult job that any of us do—bringing up our children. Speaking as a parent, it is a standing joke to me that I was taught nothing about parenting. I saw a half-hour video in a maternity hospital shortly before my wife gave birth to our first child; it told me where it had gone in and where it came out, and that was it. It told me nothing about what I should do when I had got the little thing home and the problems started—when it was screaming in the middle of the night, or it would not go to sleep. We all need help, whatever our social background.

Hilton Dawson: Is my hon. Friend aware of cutting-edge research into the way in which social interactions and parents' behaviour can have physical effects on the brains of very young children that affect the way in which they behave throughout their lives? Is it not therefore incredibly important that we reach out to the parents of very young children and help them to manage their children appropriately?

David Hinchliffe: I have not seen the research, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will let me have a look at it. He reinforces the point that I was making.
	Other than the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the present UK position has been criticised by the European Court of Human rights, by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Health Committee—both all-party Committees—and by every child protection agency in the country. We should listen to bodies that are in the front line of child protection every day.
	I thank my right hon. Friends the Minister for Children, who is no longer in her place, and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the time that they have taken to listen to me and many of my colleagues on the question of reasonable chastisement. We have engaged in lots of dialogue over a long period and I genuinely hope that that dialogue will continue. I appreciate that media attitudes make the issue a difficult one for any Government, but clause 49 as amended is full of holes, which worries me very much. The briefing note sent to hon. Members by Save the Children says that clause 49
	"will lead to greater legal ambiguity, professional uncertainty and parental confusion about what is, and is not, acceptable".
	I am not a lawyer, but I spent a long time in child protection, and in my view the clause is naive, totally impractical and frankly dangerous. We have to do something about it.
	Clause 49 relies on "wounding" and "bodily harm" in defining an offence against a child. In practice, though, as one or two of my colleagues know who have had experience in child protection, it is frequently difficult to prove whether such bodily harm has occurred when children are injured, sometimes quite seriously. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred to the fact that people mark in different ways. In another place, on the Lester amendment, the point was rightly made that there are clear ethnic differences about what may be visible on a child's body.
	Invisible injuries are often the most painful and dangerous. I spent 20 years playing rugby league, and I speak with feeling about some of my injuries. The worst was to a rib cartilage: there was nothing to see, but the doctor told me it was worse than having broken ribs. I could not move for around six months without acute pain. Nothing could be seen: there was no bruising or anything else to see, but that was a serious and painful injury. On several occasions, I certainly had head injuries when there was no visible sign but when the fact that I was seeing double or treble indicated that something was rather wrong.
	The clause, as amended, does not address the practical reality of the situations with which social workers, the police and child protection agencies will deal with day to day. It will be helpful to the lawyers, who will laugh all the way to the bank. Frankly, though, it will not help the child victims of serious assault.
	When the Children Act 1989 went through the House, I served on the Committee and moved an amendment to remove reasonable chastisement as a defence. We failed to do that, and we were perhaps before our time; I have frequently been before my time but I hope it will come. We were defeated, I suspect, because we did not have the evidence at that stage of what had happened with our policy in other countries. Now, as I said when I intervened on the Minister, 12 European countries have prohibited all physical punishment, and we can see from their research the positive impact of what they have done. If anyone wants to read some of the detailed research, I can let them have copies. Latvia and Romania are the most recent, and I mention Romania because it is only 10 years since I was there with a voluntary organisation, helping the Romanians to construct a child care system. Since then, they have gone past us in their advanced thinking on child protection and have taken the commonsense measure of giving children equal protection in law against assault.
	I hope that we can continue to have the dialogue that the Minister for Children indicated she was willing to hold. Eighty children die each year in the United Kingdom at the hands of their parents or carers.

Win Griffiths: We have heard before the figure of 80 children dying, which is terrible. We also need to remember, though, that thousands of children are physically abused all over the United Kingdom every year.

David Hinchliffe: I entirely agree. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children told me not long ago that at least one child in every classroom in the country is being seriously assaulted, and that is a worrying figure.
	To have any credibility on child protection, the Bill has to ensure that children have the same protection in law as adults. We have time to put that right, and I genuinely hope that we will manage to do it before we get the Bill into law.

James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, which is on a subject of the highest importance and on which we probably do not spend enough time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I support the aims of the Bill and the Bill itself, and I welcome the tone that he took. When the Bill goes into Committee, I hope that the Government will respond in kind to his constructive approach and to constructive comments from Members on both sides of the House. I believe that there are still some improvements to be made.
	I approach this matter in the spirit of the Laming report on the Victoria Climbié case, which, in many respects, forms a vital part of the background to the Bill. I interpret the spirit of that report, at least in part, as being the fullest and widest acceptance of responsibility for the welfare of children, especially those who are the most vulnerable. In the case of those children who are most at risk, front-line social workers, who have all the burden of face to face contact with children and families and who are in receipt, no doubt, of a less than princely reward for doing so, should not be left to shoulder all the responsibility when things go wrong. In saying that, I am mindful of the view explicitly expressed by Lord Laming:
	"Having considered all the evidence, it is not to the hapless front-line staff that I direct most criticism for the failure to protect Victoria Climbié."
	He found that the greatest failures lay elsewhere, higher up the chain of command. In the spirit of his report, we need to ensure that there is an appropriate acceptance of responsibility at all levels, up to the highest levels of local authorities, and beyond to this House and Ministers.
	With that in mind, I welcome the Bill's principal provision for focusing minds on the welfare of children—the creation of a children's commissioner. The Bill has been very much improved as a result of debates in the other place, so it was with some disappointment that I heard the Minister say that the Government plan to overturn clause 2 as it stands and to go back to the original form of clause 2. Having studied it, I think that the current clause 2 is an improvement, and I hope that that will be fully considered in Committee.
	There are other respects in which the Bill could be further improved, and those will need detailed consideration. Concerns remain about the independence of the commissioner, which is a key point if we are to have effective provision. When the Bill was published, the commissioner looked too much like a champion of the Government rather than a champion of children. In the other place, Lord Northbourne graphically referred to a "castrated children's commissioner". The provisions have been improved, but further improvements could make the commissioner much more clearly independent of Government. As the Bill stands, even in its improved form, and by contrast with the position in Wales, the children's commissioner is to be appointed by the Secretary of State and to be eligible for reappointment at the end of his or her five-year term entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That is hardly a configuration suggesting the presence of the attributes that Lord Northbourne suggested might be lacking in the children's commissioner.
	What is the flavour of the relationship suggested by clause 5 (1), which provides that the Secretary of State can direct the commissioner to hold an inquiry? The word used is "direct" as opposed to "request". Again, that contrasts with the independence granted to other children's commissioners in that regard.
	The Bill has been much improved since it was first published, when there was a widespread perception that the commissioner needed to be made more independent, but still more needs to be done to buttress the independence and the effectiveness of the commissioner. I hope we will hear from the Government in due course, in Committee, what more they propose should happen, for example, as a result of the reports from the commissioner—something that they have undertaken to do. We must ensure that the commissioner's work is effective and that it is listened to and responded to.
	It must be right to encourage co-operation and closer working between different services. We wait to see how much progress is made towards the creation of children's trusts. Surely we should aim to measure children's trusts by looking for demonstrable improvements in the care of children—improvements that are commensurate with the scale and cost of the administrative reorganisation that will be necessary to create such trusts. It is not enough for Ministers to reel off long lists of new names and new bodies. It must be demonstrated that there have been tangible and commensurate improvements as a result of the investments being made.
	I welcome the provisions in clause 9 relating to information databases, although my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made some important points in that regard. The matter needs to be further debated. There has been a constructive debate so far, but I demur from the views expressed by the Liberal Democrats. The data-sharing provisions are a step forward. I make a plea to Ministers that, in the detail of the provisions, we ensure that the overriding considerations are the welfare and safety of children, and that those come before any other concerns. If there is a conflict between the safety of a child and the technicalities of data protection, let us avoid a situation in which those charged with a child's safety are afraid to act because they are worried about the data protection provisions. Let the safety of the child come first, and let it be the overriding consideration. It may be the intention of clause 9(11) to make that clear. I hope it will be made crystal clear when the matter is debated in Committee.
	I also welcome the provisions relating to the educational achievement of children in care and the spelling out of a duty on local authorities to promote the child's educational achievements, although I note that that appears in the miscellaneous provisions in part 5. In my view, it is far more important than that. I welcome the fact that the educational performance and well-being of children being looked after by local authorities has been mentioned today from all parts of the House.
	I accept that other work is being done on this topic, and rightly so. As has been observed from all sides, children in care lag behind other children in educational achievement. The statistics for children being looked after have already been given: only 8 per cent. of young people in year 11 who had spent at least one year in care gained five or more GCSEs graded A to C, compared with 50 per cent. of all young people. Only 1 per cent. of them go on to university. If a school were producing such results, it would be soon be put into special measures, if not closed down altogether. We cannot allow a situation to persist in which children in care lag so far behind other children in an area as crucial as educational achievement, with their life prospects so badly hindered as a result.
	Another issue that should have received greater prominence in the Bill is the role of parents, with which I shall deal in a moment in another context. The importance of the role of parents is dealt with in a rather perfunctory way in the Bill as it stands. It is dealt with in three lines in clause 7(3)—three lines in a 44-page Bill. I would welcome hearing rather more about parents.
	That brings me to the aspect of the Bill that has brought parental rights into the sharpest focus: the issue of chastisement of children. My hon. Friend was right to make a plea that we should not allow that to overshadow the rest of the Bill, but we cannot avoid a debate on it because for many people it is an important subject. It may surprise Members in some quarters of the House that my approach to the matter is rather coloured by my personal view that physical chastisement is a wholly ineffective way of administering the discipline that children sometimes need. My own observations lead me to the view that smacking, and certainly the use of an implement such as a cane, does no good whatever, and could conceivably do some harm.
	The case has been somewhat overstated from the Labour Benches, particularly by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who made a sincere speech about his strongly held views. The case of Victoria Climbié, which has been prayed in aid in this context, is not the right example. The injuries in that case went way beyond anything that could have fallen within the ambit of reasonable chastisement. I remember that the pathologist said that they were the worst injuries he had ever encountered and the worst he had ever heard of. That is way beyond the subject of today's debate.
	There is an issue, however, in the case of the repeated use of moderate chastisement, which would fall outside the ambit of clause 49. I have some concerns about the long-term effect of the repeated use of physical chastisement on a child.

Hilton Dawson: Bearing in mind his views, will the hon. Gentleman study the reports of other child abuse inquiries, going back even to Maria Colwell, and note the number of times a parent's predilection for using physical punishment, coupled with a child's apparent imperviousness to that physical punishment, has resulted in over-chastisement to the dreadful point where the child dies?

James Clappison: That brings me to my next point, from which the hon. Gentleman may draw some comfort. The issue calls for further research and a careful examination of all the evidence. I am the first to confess that I have not yet done sufficient research into all the evidence from previous cases to lead me to a concluded view.
	There are other facts that I would have to set against that if there were a free vote on the matter, which there will not be. The issue that should exercise the conscience of all of us, and which I set against my worries about harm to children—this is my personal view as a parent—is whether it would be right for me to impose my view in this regard on other parents, and whether it would be right for the House, and in effect the state, to limit the decisions of parents. I would have to weigh that in the balance.
	I have great hesitation in circumscribing the actions that other parents, contrary to my own views, feel could be taken and would improve their care of their child. Other parents may take a different view from mine, and I have some hesitation in circumscribing their rights. As I said a moment ago, not only in the Bill but in the wider debate, we do not pay sufficient attention to the rights of parents. It is the parents in the first instance who provide the care that we hope our children will receive.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I am listening to with great interest. As he is a lawyer, what would he say about the view that children should have equal status before the law and equal protection from assault and battery?

James Clappison: Since 1860 the defence of reasonable chastisement has taken children out of what would otherwise be the provisions of the law. Carried out against an adult, the sort of actions that we are considering would probably fall within the offence of assault. Those actions do not fall within the offence of assault because of the defence of reasonable chastisement, and we must examine the matter, taking into account the facts that I just elucidated.
	Under clause 49, a prosecution for assault, which is the relevant part of our criminal code, could still take place, subject to the provisions of reasonable chastisement. Clause 49 will need careful consideration in Committee, particularly on the question whether it changes the law and risks creating new loopholes. Today, the law allows parents to administer the discipline that they feel is appropriate in the case of their child through reasonable chastisement.
	We must primarily look to parents. We are trying to achieve what we can through legislation, but we must recognise the limit on what legislation can achieve. I suspect that many children today have not received the same quality of emotional experience as children in previous generations, because of a range of factors that it is beyond our power to control. We must do what we can to control things, particularly in the case of those children—this is a minority of cases, but it is a substantial minority—who are most at risk of abuse and neglect. We must do everything that we possibly can through legislation to protect those children, and I hope that the Bill is subject to detailed consideration to make sure that it is as effective as it can be for that purpose.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am delighted to participate in this debate. The Government have made successive commitments to children through the use of their legislative time. We have seen the Care Standards Act 2000, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and now we have the Children Bill. No previous Government have included so much children's legislation in their agenda over a seven-year period.
	This is not just about legislation, but about backing up legislation with resources. The Government have attacked child poverty, provided more nursery places and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, increased child benefit. We know the benefits that children and their families derive from investment in nursery education because we can see them in all our constituencies. The Government have also invested in the Sure Start programme, which I want extended. When one talks to parents about Sure Start's impact, it is apparent that it provides considerable assistance in bringing up children.
	The Government's record is considerable and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for her work over a number of years. She has had her critics, particularly when she was appointed, but she has delivered with this Bill. She has listened to the various agencies and to hon. Members and delivered a Bill of which the Government can be proud.
	The Government have put in money, too. The vulnerable children's grant will provide an additional £252 million in 2003 to 2006, which includes £113 million to improve care placements. Many hon. Members have spoken about children in care, to whom I shall return later in my remarks.
	It is important that individual cases do not bog down the commissioner. The commissioner must be independent, and they will retain that independence, which is a point that does not need to be on the face of the Bill. Consider the chief inspector of schools at Ofsted, who is independent. Certain previous chief inspectors could not be accused of lacking independence, although in some cases the line between policy and politics became blurred. The personality of the individual who is appointed is important and we cannot put that on the face of the Bill.
	On the appointment, we want a powerful advocate to examine children's issues. My right hon. Friend mentioned the issues that she wants the commissioner to examine, and I hope that the commissioner will examine issues such as children in custody and the secure estate, because in many instances, the record on protecting those vulnerable individuals is appalling.
	Private fostering was debated in the parliamentary stages of all the legislation to which I referred and we need proper regulation to come into effect sooner rather than later. I welcome the Conservatives' conversion to regulation. Conservative Front Benchers often discuss regulation, but I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has consulted the shadow Secretary of State for deregulation.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman knows that throughout the entire course of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I supported the greater regulation of private fostering as part of official policy, and I produced a Private Member's Bill on the subject just last year. A conversion has not occurred, and Conservative policy has been entirely consistent. We will continue to press for greater regulation when it means greater safety for vulnerable children.

Jonathan R Shaw: The conversion occurred after the Care Standards Act 2000, on which the hon. Gentleman led for the Conservatives.

Tim Loughton: indicated dissent.

Jonathan R Shaw: The Conservative spokesperson on the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 did not agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I am delighted that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has caught up, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister catches up before another four years elapse.
	The database is important. We must put every child on it, otherwise ambiguities will occur and we will lose children but we will probably lose children anyway. Will we have another inquiry like the Victoria Climbié inquiry? Yes, we will, in which case we must be able to put our hands on our hearts and say that we did everything that we possibly could. We must close loopholes such as private fostering and ensure that we have information on children.
	We should obtain information on all 11 million children in the country. Problems will undoubtedly occur and it is down to us to ensure that we get the legislation right, and down to the Government to order the correct software to build the right kind of database. Appeals were mentioned earlier, and the issue is undoubtedly a can of worms. However, if we step back from it, we will not be able to put our hands on our hearts and say that we could not have done anything else if another case occurs. We should not put appeals in the tray marked, "too difficult", but grasp the problem and get it right.
	On chastisement, given my background in child protection and social work, it may surprise some of my hon. Friends that I am not persuaded that we should take a position on parental rights. I share much of the hesitation articulated by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—the measure is a step too far and a step too soon. Daily mild physical punishment, which may have an impact on a child, has been referred to, but what about daily emotional abuse, which can be equally painful?
	We want to move to a situation in which we provide parents with support through parenting information. The children's fund has done good work in assisting parents to find new solutions to bring up children in difficult circumstances. I am not convinced that we should take away control from parents.
	It is unhelpful for hon. Members to use the very emotive case of Victoria Climbié to make a comparison with a tap on the back of the legs. The general public will not recognise that comparison but will be offended by it. I ask my hon. Friends to exercise caution instead of letting their desire to amend the Bill run away with them.
	On schools, I welcome the extensions proposed by the Government, but I am not yet convinced that schools should not have a duty to co-operate to improve well-being. Some schools see themselves as part of the local authority family with all agencies working together, but many are isolated. Schools should be part of promoting well-being and have nothing to fear from it. There should be no ambiguity on that score.
	We have heard about the number of children who leave care having gained qualifications. We all share the despair that as few as 6 per cent. of those children—56,000—leave school with five or more good GCSEs, with only 1 per cent. going to university. We need to do far more work in relation to designated teachers, as the Government's own research said that the situation is mixed at best. Mixed is not good enough: it needs to be much better. In this context, the state is the child's parent, and a parent wants their child to go to the very best school. That is where I would challenge the Conservatives. It is all very well to list the statistics, as many of us do, but we need to ensure that there is a mechanism whereby children in care—looked-after children—can get into the very best schools. That is why I welcome admissions arrangements by the adjudicator whereby children in public care should be treated as No. 1, before anyone else, where there are oversubscribed places. Without that provision, I fail to see how that can happen. It is like saying, "We feel your pain. We're very sorry about this, and something should happen, but we're not going to do anything about it."

Andrew Turner: We discussed this at some length in the Select Committee on Education and Skills before our report on admissions. The failure lies neither with schools nor with the parents of children who would be displaced were other children to have priority on admissions, but with the children's homes that are meant to be looking after these looked-after children. I have yet to hear an explanation of why those displaced children should suffer.

Jonathan R Shaw: Of the 60,000 children in care, 56,000 are with foster carers, so very few are in children's homes, whether failing or not. The point is this: does a school make a difference in terms of a child's educational opportunity and attainment? Of course it does. Therefore, given that such a small number of children have such a huge impact on society in terms of the number who are in prison or involved in crime, drugs and so on, should not we intervene to provide them with the best opportunities? This is perhaps an ideological difference. I happen to think that, if there is a mechanism whereby we can intervene to assist a child in care who has been abused and has had absolutely nothing in the way of a good start in life, we should do so.

Tim Loughton: rose—

Jonathan R Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, that indicates a perfectly reasonable ideological difference. I am prepared to make my argument, and the electorate can make the choice.

Tim Loughton: Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) dispute the end that the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but he has not addressed an important point. In an area where there are five children living with foster parents or in children's homes and five children who are living with their birth parents and who may have siblings at a school or live very close to it, the hon. Gentleman suggests that, if that school was oversubscribed, the five children in care should receive preference, while the five children living with their birth parents, through no fault of their own, would not. That is the consequence that he does not address.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman cites an extreme example to advance his argument.

Tim Loughton: indicated dissent.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is extreme. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there might be five children living in care surrounding the most popular school. I have never known that situation in 10 years of working with children in care.

Meg Munn: Twenty years.

Jonathan R Shaw: Yes—20 years. The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is unlikely to arise, so it is not a good argument for him to advance.

Tim Loughton: rose—

Jonathan R Shaw: Let me try to respond to his point before he jumps up again. I know why he is struggling: it is because the Conservatives' admissions policy is all over the place. For example, they would not have any proximity requirements. It is perfectly reasonable that, if a child in care is on the waiting list to go to a very popular school, the corporate parent should exercise that responsibility and choice. It is not a question of displacing others, but of parents—in this case, the state—doing the best for their child. We all, as parents, want to do the best for our child. We have not done enough in the past—the statistics showing so few such children leaving school with educational qualifications tell us that. We should make that intervention and be more robust, as the state parent, in ensuring that our children get a better deal than they have before.

Tim Loughton: We will have a great deal of interesting debate on this in Committee, and rightly so. I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly need state intervention and state preference to do everything possible to promote the educational achievement of those children at school through a whole range of measures, some of which the hon. Gentleman touched on.
	I am surprised that that the hon. Gentleman described my example as extreme, because I am faced with highly oversubscribed schools all the time. In the case of two such schools in my constituency last year, one was oversubscribed by 76, and 67 appeals were heard, while another was oversubscribed by 21, all of whom had siblings at the same school. Like it or not, adding a preference on admission will add yet another complication. It is not an extreme example—it happens in practice—and the hon. Gentleman has not squared the disbenefit that his approach would inevitably bring to other children through no fault of their own. That is what we need to address.

Jonathan R Shaw: Such children are in care through no fault of their own and we need to decide whether we want to intervene to provide them with the best schools and the best opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is saying, "This has lots of problems, it's too difficult, and we're not going to do anything about it."
	I am conscious that I have spent a lot of time on that issue and I want to conclude with a few points about children in secure accommodation. Currently, 3,135 children are locked up, compared with 2,590 in 1997. Nine out of 10 have mental health problems. Black youngsters are over-represented. Twenty-five per cent. of male offenders are fathers and 39 per cent. of female offenders are mothers. We need to find better ways of ensuring that children are placed appropriately. One tragic case was that of Adam Rickwood, a 14-year-old who was placed 100 miles away from his family and took his own life.
	We know that it is vital for individuals who are locked up to have family support. That is why I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Minister to suggest that the Youth Justice Board should promote welfare. If it makes decisions to place children 100 miles away from their family, it would be difficult to argue that it promoted welfare. That organisation needs to be on the list.

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am going to curtail my remarks. I wanted to say many other things but I got bogged down in admissions. I have been bogged down in the Select Committee's admissions inquiry for the past six months and that has continued this evening.
	Overall, I welcome the Bill. If I am selected to serve on the Committee, I should like to take up some issues, but the measure is a testament to my right hon. Friend's hard work in getting it to the House of Commons. There have been compromises and changes, and that is right. As I said previously, we need to do our very best to get it right. In any future inquiry, we would have to put our hands on our hearts and ask ourselves, "Did the House of Commons, when it debated the Children Bill in 2004, do the right thing?" Let us hope that we do.

Andrew Turner: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who referred to the independence of which inspectors and commissioners are capable. The best advocate for children in the past few years was the one to whom the hon. Gentleman referred without naming him—Chris Woodhead, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. He advocated with energy and enthusiasm his perception of children's needs. The then Secretary of State appointed him, and I have no doubt that it would be possible to find an equivalent advocate for children in the form of the commissioner.
	I hope that, in appointing a commissioner, the Minister will take seriously children's views and those of their representatives—I do not mean bodies, however important or worthy, but children. I suggest that she at least consult the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, and perhaps gives it a shortlist from which it could make the appointment.
	It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who adopted a tone of realistic modesty about our responsibilities as hon. Members. It is important that we do not diminish parents' efforts by appearing to know best. It is easy to stand here and say what we think should happen and give the impression that we know better, because we do not necessarily know better. Many parents struggle valiantly to do a good job in the best way that they know how. It would be a great error for us to take from parents the weapons and support systems that they already have. That is one reason why I would vote against removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement from parents, who undertake the difficult task of bringing up children.
	The Bill has some good aspects. I am particularly impressed by the proposal for joined-up inspection, and we have spoken about the need for effective education of cared-for children—I shall not take up any more of the House's time on that—but there are also some questionable points. I am worried about the database and the amount of involvement and intervention in people's private lives that is implicit in maintaining it for every single child. I note that the Government have made a reservation. They said that they believe that it is a proportionate action to prevent a greater ill. That is their understandable opinion, but I am concerned about what might feature on the database.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said that not attending a school might be a cause for concern. I am not sure whether she meant that not being registered at a school was a cause for concern. Parents in this country have the right—indeed, the duty—to educate their children. They have the right not to register their children at a school, and to educate them at home. Many parents take advantage of that, and it is not right for us automatically to assume that that is a cause for concern. It would be wrong if professionals referred to some database and took account of it as a cause for elevating the case of a child.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that a local authority has to know the full arrangements for educating at home, and that there is a form of inspection?

Andrew Turner: Of course there is some sort of inspection, but that does not mean that there is a cause for concern. It is wrong to interpret as a cause for concern a parent's legitimate choice about the way in which to bring up a child. Yet the hon. Lady suggested that in the context of the database.
	We have briefly discussed parental contact and access. One of the reasons for the Bill's importance is that there is no doubt that having two loving parents is a privilege that many enjoy and too many do not, yet some Labour Members have in the past suggested that it should be possible to deny a child's access to one parent because of that parent's treatment of the other parent. We should focus on whom we deprive when and if that happens. It is suggested that the courts should make some of those decisions but too many are taken unilaterally by an individual parent who flouts a court order, which was made with the paramount interests of his or her children in mind.
	Except in exceptional circumstances, the courts seem unable to do anything to prevent the flouting of their orders. The result is not the deprivation of another parent—although, of course, he or she is deprived—but that of a child. A child is being deprived of access to a parent's love and care. I welcome the fact that the Government published proposals on 21 July, but we need to take steps as quickly as possible to give the courts and other authorities the necessary powers to ensure that children are not so deprived. That is fundamentally important.

Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the need to consult children. Has he taken any of the opportunities that Women's Aid has provided in the House to meet children who have been in situations of domestic violence? Has he studied any of the literature that clearly links domestic violence and child abuse?

Andrew Turner: I have consulted Women's Aid in my constituency and I have met children in that situation. I was not referring only to children who have witnessed domestic violence, although they form one group—that for which it is suggested that we make formal arrangements to prevent access to one of their parents. I was speaking more of those for whom one parent makes the unilateral decision that they shall not meet or have access to their other parent.
	We should also consider sibling contact—the right of one child to have access to his or her siblings. I have a sad case in my constituency of a child who was taken for adoption without the interests of the other child in the family being taken into account by the courts, which had in mind the paramount interests of the first child. Of course I understand that, but I find it difficult to see how one child's interests should be paramount over those of another. There have been cases in which local authorities have not known which parent's views to take into account, when the parents give conflicting preferences for schools. That needs to be sorted out. There can also be clashes between magistrates imposing an order against harassment and a court's decision that a child should have access to both parents. I suspect that that is the kind of case to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was referring. I can assure him that no physical violence was involved in the case that I have in mind, although there was justification, in the eyes of the magistrates, for a non-harassment order.
	We should take this opportunity to deal with these matters. It is not sufficient to say that we will deal with them in due course, because childhood is short and we need to give as many children as possible access to both their parents through the opportunities afforded by the Bill, when that is what the court has decided. That is why I support the presumption of equal parenting—I believe that it was merely a presumption that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) put forward. That should be the position from which the courts start when making a decision about the paramount interests of the child.
	I am glad that the Government have come forward with proposals on combining inspection, but the proposals to be made by Her Majesty's chief inspector must be very clear, sharp and simple. If we are not careful, there will be a multiplicity of inspections and of hoops through which all sorts of providers will have to jump. That would not be to the benefit of children.
	On child protection, I am concerned about the implementation of the decisions of the Bichard inquiry. Of course I understand the need for adolescents to be afforded privacy, but the Bichard inquiry found that Ian Huntley had abused a number of young women, some just above and some just below the statutory age of consent, and that their cases had not been reported appropriately to the police. I corresponded with a director of social services on this subject and asked what measures were being put in place to implement the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry that all such contacts should be brought to the attention of the police. I got the distinct feeling that the matter was being kicked into the long grass. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention—I do not know whether it was the intention of the director concerned—but I felt that there was a move to say, "Hang on. In some cases, these contacts should not be brought to the attention of the police."
	Another issue related to child protection is that of how the child protection rules deter volunteers from helping in voluntary organisations. I have been told that the Red Cross has found it difficult to maintain its young people's organisation, and I have seen examples in my constituency of sports organisations finding it difficult to keep sufficient adults on board to provide the wide range of sports and training that they have provided in the past. When Yvonne Baxter addressed the children's services committee of my local council, she said:
	"Child protection in sports is an issue. Children in a group need a chaperone or someone to drive them. We know it is for child protection but people are opting out because of these rules, such as vetting. It is a double-edged sword, for example, the driver cannot be alone in a car with just one young person."
	That might be a misinterpretation of the rules, but it is a widespread understanding of them, and it is leading people to refuse to take part in training or to come forward as scout or guide leaders, school governors or assistants in schools. I hope that we can take this opportunity to look again at the Criminal Records Bureau, and at the way in which it does its job and the amount of information that it needs to approve someone for one of those posts.
	The Bill has great potential to do good for children, but there are some aspects, to which I have referred, that could be improved. I hope that we shall take the opportunity to improve them in Committee.

Hilton Dawson: Like the hon. Members who have spoken before me, I am privileged to take part in this debate. Some will not even regard this as the most important Bill that we discuss this week, but I believe that it is the most significant one in a long list of tremendous legislation that the Government have introduced in the past seven years. It sits firmly in the framework of measures to improve the situation of children in this country. Frankly, in 1997, I would not have believed that the Government could have achieved as much as they have done. Saying that will entitle me to be extremely critical later, but I want to start by being extremely positive.
	We should be positive about children—perhaps more so than we have been so far today. We have a degree of self-interest in this regard, because the children we are talking about will run the world when we are in our old age. It is therefore in our interest to treat them well. If we get the Bill right, it could transform the prospects of children throughout the UK and provide firm ground for a generational and cultural change that could go far beyond any policy or law that any single Government could enact. Above all, we should enjoy and celebrate our children. Every parent knows that nothing matters as much as their children. The first rule of social work with children is to ask, "Would what I am about to do be good enough for my own child?" That should be the first rule of being an MP as well, and of children's policy making.
	On the way to this Bill, the Government have made a profound statement about this country's best resource. The very title of the Green Paper—"Every Child Matters"—recognises children's significance but also sets out a challenge and a means by which all of us—the Government and everyone taking part in this debate—can be judged. The Laming inquiry, the Green Paper and the Bill were prompted by the brutal murder of Victoria Climbié following a period of atrocious abuse. Much change was immediately implemented following the recommendations of Lord Laming but, terribly, over the summer, things began to get worse.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned the death of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood, who was found hanged on 9 August at Hassockfield secure training centre. That was an appalling tragedy in itself, but its awful significance is increased by the fact that Adam was the youngest child to die in custody in modern penal history. What are we doing to allow such a young child to become so desperate, locked up among strangers, miles from his home? The deaths of 15 children in the custody of the state since 1997, of more than 20 children during contact visits at the hands of violent parents since the early 1990s, and of one or two children every week at the hands of parents or care givers in this so civilised country should shame us all. They should make us determined not to leave our work on the Bill until the situation has radically improved.
	Every child matters, not just most of them, and not just every child apart from those who misbehave, those who have entered the country from abroad, those whose special needs are complex and difficult to meet, or those whose voices are lost in the selfish clamour from adults. Every child matters.
	I am delighted that we have this Bill. Lots of us have laid a claim on the children's commissioner, but when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children introduced the Bill today, she was the first person to move for a children's commissioner in England since I did so in a private Member's Bill on 16 April 2001. During discussions at that time, I was told by one Minister, an excellent colleague, that we would never get one. Things change, and sometimes we should just enjoy our little victories.
	Since I was persuaded of this idea by a young woman called Suraya Patel, at a conference of young people in care in Lancashire in 1987, I have firmly believed that the establishment of a children's rights commissioner, independent of government, answerable to children and young people, able to go where he or she wills, investigate what he or she wishes, and freely inquire and report, working in accordance with the UN convention on the rights of the child, is a necessary—although not sufficient— condition for the fundamental improvement of the lives of all children.
	At the heart of it, children are ignored, overlooked, neglected, abused, and sometimes die, because they have no power. Yet children are this country's greatest asset by far—by a million miles—and they know more than we do about what it is like to be them, and about many other things, too. They have good, practical ideas, which are often better than ours, and can often communicate with other children far better than us. We should allow them to vote at 16. More importantly, at every level, in every aspect of their lives, we should ensure that we listen to them, enable them to participate, and sometimes allow them to lead. We should encourage their own organisations, such as the UK Youth Parliament, A National Voice, and Article 12, and we should back them with a bold, fearless, relentless, principled advocate, who is steeped in good communication with children, and who will build an enduring network to ensure that their voices are heard and their rights upheld wherever and whoever they are.
	The state of children across England and the UK must improve. Government and Parliament should welcome the prospect of challenge, resource it properly and assure its independence in the knowledge that well-meaning adults need an uncomfortable ally if real change is to come.
	There will be a great deal of debate about the commissioner during the Bill. At the moment, thanks to the Hansard society, there is a good online debate taking place among young people from schools across the whole country about what they see as the issues, what sort of person they want, and how they want the commissioner to communicate with them. Every hon. Member can take part in that debate by logging on to www.headsup.org.uk, and we can ensure that our work is improved by using the excellent ideas from there in our discussions in the House.
	Some of the views expressed included the following. Someone said that the children's commissioner should be of a similar age to young people, someone whom they could trust, and not someone who would be like one of those politicians who do whatever they like. Someone said that the commissioner should be relaxed, and someone with whom one can have a laugh, as well as taking things seriously. The commissioner should take on important issues such as curfews, drugs, bullying and racism, and, as someone said eloquently, children's fears. I cannot possibly do justice to the hundreds of entries in this short time. However, I strongly and sincerely recommend that all Members look at the consultation, take part in it, and talk to young people from across the country.
	As someone who wants a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber, I regret to say that, with one grotesque exception, the other place has done a good job in scrutinising and improving the Bill. We should think carefully before rejecting the wisdom that has come from the earlier debate.
	Unfortunately, the Bill contains clause 49. We should recognise that early in the 21st century, countries across the world, not just in Europe, are abolishing what for us is the Victorian concept of reasonable chastisement. Sensible, ordinary parents decide increasingly that there are far more consistent, effective ways to manage their children, and to allow that it may be reasonable to hurt them keeps our tolerance of child abuse high and helps no one but the abuser anxious to cover their tracks. Progress is inexorable in this matter. The country is moving ahead of this House. The reputation of one formerly eminent human rights lawyer is in shreds thanks to his introduction of such a ridiculous and pathetic amendment. In the future, people will look back on our debates on this issue, and laugh and gape at the attitudes of those who want to remain so far in the past, and so far behind the progressive world.
	One change made by the other place that will undoubtedly remain in the Bill will be the requirement that the commissioner must have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child. That is all very well. However, the UN convention on the rights of the child is the most accepted human rights document in the world because it is so eminently reasonable. It sets out sound principles for children and their parents. It is a matter for international criticism that this country maintains two reservations in respect of children involved in criminal justice and immigration, with the result that our policies in those two areas are an absolute disgrace. We must go much further than what is in clause 2(8), fulfil our obligations to spread knowledge and understanding of the UN convention and ensure that every child, every parent, everyone working with children and every Member of Parliament has the opportunity to become a children's rights advocate too.
	Our Prime Minister recognises that
	"our children are everything to us: our hopes, our ambitions, our future. Our children are cherished and loved."
	It must therefore be time that we all stopped being afraid of the R-word, and stopped trying to pretend that one can avoid criticism or obligation by ignoring parts of the convention. It must be time that we embraced and employed the UN convention on the rights of the child as a fundamental tool to raise standards and inspire thousands more to work in children's services, and give all children the opportunities that they should enjoy.
	We need thousands more to work in children's services. We need people to be better paid and to be recognised for their skills, and we need the same lessons to be applied to the nursing and teaching professions to be applied to the social work profession, to keep able people on the front line.
	There is a great deal in this Bill to be welcomed. I welcome the focus on outcomes, salute the establishment of children's services authorities and the new duty of co-operation, and look forward to children's trusts. Having worked for 15 years in social work with children, I am absolutely certain that the drive to centre services around the needs and voices of children, to integrate services, to break down the barriers between authorities, organisations, professions and institutions is of fundamental importance. It will be extremely difficult, however. It goes much further than just appointing someone to run bits of education and social services together. It requires a re-framing of issues. For example, the safety of children on school buses is seen in the House and in local authorities as a transport issue. It is not; it is a children's issue. In fact, given the number of deaths and accidents, the whole question of road safety is a major child protection issue.
	The cultural transformation that must be achieved will be difficult and will need to be hard fought on the ground. One thing attracting me away from the House at the next general election is the knowledge that a crucial battle over the best opportunity to transform the lives of children that any of us are likely to see in our working lifetimes will not be fought out here. It will be fought out on the ground.
	I welcome the establishment of local safeguarding children's boards and know from discussions that I have had with senior officials in my local authority that they will be taken up with alacrity. However, one strong message from the front line is that staff would benefit from early dissemination of the regulations, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to take that on board.
	While I am on the subject of Lancashire county council, although I accept all the strictures about the disadvantages and delay brought by structural change, there is not the slightest hope of the children of Lancashire benefiting from a first-class children's service from a children's services authority extending across 11 districts and eight primary care trust boundaries without significant devolution.
	I welcome the prospect of joint area reviews, but I do not think that too much should be left to the inspectors.
	As well as Climbié and Laming, we have had Bristol Royal infirmary and Kennedy. As well as the Bill, we are shortly to have a national service framework. As well as an increased departmental budget for children's services, we have an increased NHS budget. It is vital for that money to be well spent. We must have really effective work across Government as well as at local level. It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), here to wind up the debate. He has a splendid record of support for the social work profession—and I am happy to tell him that I am the first Member of Parliament to obtain registration as a general social care counsellor.
	The proposals relating to private fostering would be greatly improved by the deletion of the wholly inadequate notification scheme. No one knows how many privately fostered children there are, and we need a registration scheme. Africans Unite Against Child Abuse will tell us that there are thousands more than the official records suggest. Victoria Climbié was a privately fostered child, and we should serve her memory well by insisting on the obligations of private foster carers. We should also serve 60,000 looked-after children better, and recruit more local authority foster carers with a national system of allowances.
	No one should leave the Bill content without considering the duty of the state to care for the child who was locked away and dying last month while most others were enjoying their school holidays. Adam Rickwood, 14, Gavin Myatt, 15, Joseph Scholes, 16, and 12 other children dead in our child prisons while many of us have been in Parliament would have been better served by the raising of the age of criminal responsibility, the abolition of prison for children and, above all, being seen as the desperately needy children they were. We should not dream of passing a Children Bill in this Parliament without trying to ensure that no other child dies locked up by the state.
	It is a good thing that we have a Minister responsible for children, young people and families to take through a Bill devoted to children; but it is a colossal mistake that the Department responsible for police and prisons still retains so much responsibility for them. My right hon. Friend has a huge task, but she is doing an excellent job. If we made her job even bigger and gave her responsibility for all children, the Government would have a much better chance of delivering on the pledge that every child matters. We can make every child matter much more if we develop and improve this Bill.

Hywel Williams: My party welcomes large parts of the Bill, certainly the parts relating to Wales. We join in the universal welcome for the proposals for CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—in Wales. I know from discussions with its officers of the difficulties it has experienced. It has taken a long time to extract decisions from the centre, and there have been problems with gaining access to the management structure at the appropriate level. The changes that the Government have seen fit to introduce can only be for the good of Welsh children. Would that power had been allocated as appropriately in other parts of the Bill—but more of that later.
	I want to register my party's opposition to clause 49, as amended in the other place, and our commitment to equal protection. We support the "Children are Unbeatable!" campaign, and I want that to be a matter of record. I note that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is no longer present, but I commend the comments he made earlier, and the passion with which he made them. Nevertheless, my party has serious reservations about parts of the Bill.
	The proposals for the children's commissioner, for example, give the distinct impression that the arrangements for Wales were tagged on as an afterthought. How could I have reached that conclusion? Let us look at some simple pointers provided by the Government's apparent underlying assumptions. As far as I can see, Wales is mentioned just twice in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters": on page 16, which deals with the proportion of juvenile males cautioned in England and Wales—that handy little phrase which almost seems like a single word—and on page 95, where Wales appears in a long list along with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is an even longer word!
	The Green Paper refers to
	"accountability and integration—locally, regionally and nationally".
	Those levels are not defined. Perhaps the authors found them unproblematic, and they might well have been as far as they were concerned, but the real world is rather more complicated. This is not a nationalist whinge; I just want the Government to realise that circumstances are different in Wales as well as in Northern Ireland and Scotland. This is, in fact, a plea for the Government, in the specific case of the children's commissioner, to recognise that good government now requires a recognition of the reality of devolution.
	I am inevitably reminded of the infamous entry in the index of a 19th-century encyclopaedia: "For Wales see England". Every example in the Green Paper is from England. That would be fine if the Green Paper were only about arrangements in England, which apparently it is not. England has no monopoly in good practice, and of course I do not allege that the Green Paper's authors thought as much. That simple fact merely confirms my underlying supposition that this was a Green Paper for England, and that Wales was tagged on some time later.
	There is, in fact, a reference to the establishment of a children's commissioner on page 79, but there is no reference to that person's being a commissioner for England, for the United Kingdom or for England and Wales. I asked the Minister about that earlier. As far as I can see, the remit is assumed to be for England. If that is so, the Green Paper is faulty, given that much of what it contains applies to Wales. If the whole document is supposed to be about England and Wales, it is faulty because it gives only part of the story—the English part.
	As I said earlier, the Minister could clear a little of the fog by answering a simple question: what will the commissioner's title be? I think we are sophisticated enough to realise that names mean something. Establishing the commissioner's title will give a clear indication of what the commissioner is likely to do—the commissioner in England, that is. Are we to have a commissioner for England, for England and Wales, or for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? I should be happy to give way to the Minister if she wishes to intervene, as she has had some time to think about the answer to my question. Unfortunately, it appears that she does not wish to intervene. This is not a frivolous point: for many people, the answer would define what the commissioner is about.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee conducted two investigations, into the empowerment of children and young people in Wales and the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Both reached conclusions that were the opposite of those reached by the Government. I was fortunate enough to join the Committee as a new member earlier this year, and had an enlightening opportunity to join questioning of the Minister about the Bill and, in particular, the powers of the commissioner. Both questions and answers were very revealing, and can be read in a document snappily entitled "The Powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales". It makes interesting reading.
	The Minister told us that 4,000 had been consulted, but was unable to assure us that they included children from Wales. She did say that she thought some members of the Funky Dragon, the Welsh young people's parliament, might have been involved when the United Kingdom Youth Parliament was consulted.
	In that regard, she rather makes my point for me. Pre-devolution, it might have seemed quite reasonable for the few representatives from Wales on UK bodies to represent the views of people from Wales. However, we are now beyond that—as a result of the Government, of devolution and of the setting up of the Welsh Assembly.
	The proper way to consult people in Wales is to talk to them and to the appropriate Welsh body. In this case, it seems that the Government either failed to consult properly, or assumed that others were consulting on their behalf. The Minister mentioned the Welsh Assembly, but rightly or wrongly it is she, not Mr. Rhodri Morgan, who is facing me across the Floor of the House today. Whatever the situation, even if the Welsh Assembly did not consult, it is the Minister's and her Department's responsibility to consult properly. The position eventually arrived at—of not much consultation going on, apparently—is unacceptable when framing legislation for Welsh children. The resulting controversy surrounding the commissioner rather confirms that. He is not controversial himself, and nor are any of these proposals particularly controversial; indeed, I am sure that we could get over the problems. Rather, we are unhappy with the lack of consultation.
	We now know that the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the children's commissioner for Scotland and the children's commissioner for Northern Ireland were not consulted. Inevitably and perhaps unfairly, some people draw the conclusion that in terms of consultation, "every child matters" but some matter more than others. In fact, I asked the Minister seven times and in various ways about consultation with children in Wales. Eventually, I got an answer by letter. She said:
	"The Committee questioned me about whether children in Wales had been consulted on the proposals in the Green Paper . . . I answered that, to the best of my knowledge, my Department had not carried out any specific consultation exercises with children in Wales, and I can now confirm that this is indeed the case."
	I turn to another vexed question—a problem that taxes us in Wales frequently: the role of the Welsh language. It is a vexed question not because of anything to do with the Welsh language itself, but because the Government have given it insufficient consideration, if any at all. Here, there is a contrast with the establishment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. He runs a proper bilingual service—it was planned from the very first day, rather than after extensive consultation with the Welsh Language Board—and there is proper financing. Provision of service by the commissioner in Welsh or in English is not a problem, therefore; it is entirely normal. As such, it is a model of good language planning.
	By contrast, so far as I can tell from the Minister's replies, the Government's proposals ignore the Welsh language at this point, and they seem certain to mire this much-needed Bill in language controversy. At a fundamental level, the reality of bilingualism in Wales requires the planning of services with both languages in mind. Sadly, in her evidence to the Committee the Minister did not give the impression that she has any real idea of the amount of Welsh spoken in Wales. Certainly in my constituency, the language is central to Welsh life, both public and private. Nor, regrettably, was any understanding shown of the Welsh language's legal status under Welsh language legislation of 1983 when compared with other UK languages—apart, of course, from English. The Minister helpfully referred to the 160 languages spoken in her constituency; the Welsh language's status is somewhat different.
	We know that the Government intend that the new commissioner will not be involved in individual cases, although I cannot see why, given that the Welsh commissioner does so very successfully and gleans a great deal of information from such contacts. I shall give the House a simple example of the potential pitfalls of working in a bilingual context with only a monolingual mindset. One child says, "Mae fy llysdad yn fy ngharu", and another says, "Mae fy llysdad yn fy nhuro". There is a difference of only two letters, and the two sentences sound similar. However, one child is saying, "My stepfather loves me", and the other is saying, "My stepfather beats me." I have long experience of trying to persuade English colleagues that they cannot work successfully with children in Wales without an appreciation of such subtleties. Indeed, sometimes such differences are not so subtle.
	To the dismay of the Committee, the Minister also revealed that she had no contact with the Welsh Language Board, had not considered the Welsh language scheme and had no information on how a service—bilingual or otherwise—for Welsh children would be provided in practice. Significantly, she was also wholly unclear as to the financial resources available to provide a proper bilingual service.
	Unfortunately, there is a widespread perception that the English commissioner will not be as independent as the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the children's commissioner for Scotland or the children's commissioner for Northern Ireland. There is an argument to be had on this issue—I do not want to enter into it—but that is the perception. Of course, the Children's Commissioner for Wales can inquire into cases as he sees fit. He has produced work on this issue, and he can require an answer from the Government within three months. He has the power to review proposed legislation and policy for the National Assembly, to consider its potential effects on children, and so on. As I said, the current commissioner has made the direct involvement of children and young people pivotal to the work of his office.
	The European network of ombudsmen for children is also concerned about the establishment of a commissioner in England and Wales. They have said that the powers are the weakest available to any existing commissioner in the European network, and they have suggested that the new commissioner would be unable to join the network because of the lack of autonomy. That is not rabble-rousing Opposition politicians speaking; it is the European network of ombudsmen for children. I am afraid that, rightly or wrongly, this perception will hamper the commissioner's work, whether he is working in England or in Wales.
	This is not an argument about devolution, as the Minister alleged in her evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Indeed, the Prime Minister said as much to me in a letter, after I wrote to him expressing my concern that this worthwhile legislation was likely to be mired in controversy. If I may, I shall briefly quote the words of Earl Howe in the other place:
	"it is odd, to put it at its kindest, that the lines of accountability that the Government are proposing for these two commissioners appear to put legalistic considerations ahead of common sense. Children do not understand devolved and non-devolved powers; they want a simple system. They need to be able to access a single commissioner whom they regard as the champion of their interests across the board."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 2004; Vol. 660, c. 1066.]
	I put it more bluntly—or, as some might have said, more obscurely—when I said that if the Children's Commissioner for Wales acted as a proxy for the English children's commissioner, he would then be wearing two hats, each of which would be invisible to the children he was facing, and that his position would be undermined if the lack of independence was real.
	I could cite several other quotes from the other place. For example, Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Prys-Davis made similar comments. I will end, however, with a quote from a Scottish colleague, Professor Marshall, who said in giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee:
	"I think it is a question of whether you fit the children into devolution or whether you fit the government structures to meet the needs of children."
	As an ex-social worker, I, too, start with the client—the children. That is where the emphasis should be: we should fit the system to the way that children see the world and how they organise their lives. We do not need two commissioners for children in Wales: we need one with proper powers. We already have a Comisiynydd Plant Cymru—and he is quite good enough for me.

David Kidney: I start by emphasising the importance of having regard to the interests of all children. In the United Kingdom, that means 14 million individuals—11 million in England—which is more than one fifth of the entire population. I say that not because children are entitled to a due proportion of our time befitting the proportion of the population that they represent, but for the good reasons enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
	Children matter in so many different ways. They matter because they need others to enable them to have their say and be listened to and for actions to follow. Because of their special vulnerability, they need others to ensure that they are protected. I believe that they need people like us to ensure that we give free rein to the talents, ambitions and optimism that they have for the future of the society that they will take over from us.
	It is therefore right to begin by looking at the overall protection and promotion of children and their interests. For example, when the Government set a target to eradicate childhood poverty within a generation, it benefits every child and all parts of our society. When the Government divert greater resources towards early years provision—free nursery places, Sure Start centres, children's centres in every town and city—that, too, benefits all children and all parts of society.
	It is also important to consider parents and support what parents do. The first lesson of life for all of us ought to be that children's rate of learning—their capacity to learn and their speed of learning—is greatest between the years nought and three, long before any formal education such as Sure Start takes place. Every parent is not only a creator, provider and protector of children, but their first teacher. That may sound simple and obvious, but when I spoke to home start volunteers about the sort of families they supported in their own time for free, they described the homes that they went into as having no books at all. They described going into book shops to buy books with their own money to take into those homes. That brings home to us the fact that not everyone has yet got that important starting message.
	It is the same when we think about what parents are for. It seems so simple and everyone says that they know it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned how, when he became a parent, he had not the slightest idea about where to start. The starting point should be the message that if all children were brought up in the sure knowledge that they were loved and wanted, many of the social problems that we witness today would be matters of history within a generation.
	Every parent matters as well as every child, so it is important to have universal services for parents. When they need information, advice or even greater support through parenting programmes, those services should be available to them when and how they want them. I am not talking about a nanny state stepping in, because I am talking about parents who ask for help and it is right that it should be there when they need it.
	The same goes for detecting abuse and neglect. Clearly, not every child is a victim of abuse and neglect, but I believe that the range of risks is out there among all children. That is why, when the Government talk about having a database that is broad and not narrow, they are right and their opponents are wrong.
	There are dangers in setting up large databases and we might end up subject to the law of unintended consequences. Children's confidentiality might be breached and, as hon. Members have pointed out, another danger is that, if professionals can log vague expressions of concern, an important piece of information might be lost among the verbiage when it is logged. Another danger is mentioned in the Women's Aid briefing—an excellent briefing that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) drew to the House's attention. If a wider range of people are allowed access to the database, abusers might be able to use it to track down their victims. That is a serious concern.
	I join other hon. Members in praising the Bill in its present form on the appointment of a children's commissioner for England. All the points that I have just made about all children in all parts of society would form part of the role of the children's commissioner. It follows, therefore, that I approve of the broader role given to the commissioner by the amendments in the House of Lords rather than that envisaged by the Government. That will create challenges later, when we come to vote.
	I have talked about all children, but I shall move on to the issue of some children—those without parents to care for them, perhaps because of death, mental illness, abuse or many other reasons. Some people would say that it is the job of local authorities to step in and that the children should become looked after. However, I ask everybody to stop and think about the rest of the family. Other family members such as grandparents should be asked whether they could care for children whose parents cannot care for them. It is in the checklist in the Children Act 1989 that grandparents should be considered, but that does not always happen. Indeed, in practice, obstacles are often set up—legal and financial—that stop the people who would do the best job being the carers for children. I hope that we will have the time to consider that point in the passage of the Bill.
	When children are looked after by local authorities, it is not necessarily in children's homes. The majority are looked after by foster carers and we need to support foster carers who do fantastic work. Some 50 per cent. receive less than the recommended amounts in allowances for the cost of looking after children. In cases of private foster care—and Victoria Climbié was in such care—I see no difficulty in a system of registration to aid parents in choosing safe foster carers. After all, we already have a registration system for childminders who look after children for shorter periods than do foster carers.
	Local authorities are directly responsible for looking after some 59,000 children in England. The Bill rightly places councils at the heart of the new arrangements for safeguarding and protecting children's interests in the future. I welcome, as many hon. Members have already done, the duty that will be imposed on councils to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children. We might have some interesting debates during the progress of the Bill about how to ensure that local authorities and schools work in partnership to raise the academic achievements of children in care.
	I also wish to consider the situation of those children whose parents part. I do not know the numbers in cases where the parents are unmarried, although I praise the change in the law last year that enabled both parents to attend to register the birth of a child and thereby acquire parental responsibility. That has made an important difference, as I heard when I visited the local registration officer in Stafford recently.
	A huge number of married parents separate and divorce—about 150,000 a year—and dependent children are affected in more than two thirds of those divorces.
	Apart from cases where continuing contact is impossible, due to death, or problematic, due to abuse, the welfare of the child usually means that separating parents should co-operate to maintain contact of both parents with their children. Most parents achieve that without outside intervention, but we must ensure that all parents understand the importance of contact. In cases where parents continue not to co-operate about contact, we must intervene early and nip problems in the bud.
	In the Green Paper published in July, the Government turned their attention to what more needed to be done in the smaller number of cases involving a small group of obdurate parents, as Mrs. Justice Bracewell described them in the case of V v. V in May 2004. In that case, Mrs. Justice Bracewell made public in open court her concerns about the difficulty for the courts in ensuring that contact takes place. As she said, there is limited room for procedural change in court practice to assist; what is needed is new legislation. Bleakly, The Daily Telegraph report of her comments ended:
	"No such legislation is being brought forward".
	That conclusion is probably unkind, given the consultation paper, and it is probably too much to think that the Bill could incorporate the type of legislation that the judge wanted. However, I hope that, during the Bill's passage, the Government can give us a commitment that the legislation that has been shown to be necessary, both by the judge's comments and by the responses to the Green Paper, will be put on to the statute book.
	Finally, I echo the comments made by many Members about the UN convention on the rights of the child and the aspects in which this country is not compliant. The convention sets out reasonable standards to which most decent people would sign up. Indeed, a previous British Government signed up to the convention. We are, however, still deficient on the treatment of young children in the criminal justice system and in nationality and immigration issues and on the defence of reasonable chastisement. The 10th report in the 2002–03 Session of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was on the UN convention, and I recommend that we look at the report and the Committee's comments on those three matters.
	The report recommended a children's commissioner for England. The Bill provides that and I hope that, by the time it reaches the statute book, it will meet the other recommendations in the report.

Adrian Flook: The aim of the Bill is twofold: to raise national standards, which is vital, and to right the wrongs so ably expressed by Lord Laming.
	It is worrying that 30,000 children nationally are registered as at risk of abuse. To put that at the level of the House, there are 50 such children in each constituency. Each week, at least one child will die as a result of cruelty. It is especially chilling that a quarter of all rape victims are children.
	I welcome the Bill and the enabling tone of the legislation. It is very positive indeed. I have two main concerns, however. First, as we have heard, far too much of the detail about the information-sharing schemes is still missing. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, the database seems to be about ticking boxes—as though merely to appear on it will address the child's needs. That is obviously not the case. Barnardo's has picked up that concern and has said that the clause means that the database will
	"fail to contribute to better outcomes".
	Secondly, where will the staff to implement the Bill's provisions come from? Who will knock on doors to investigate the abuse of children and work with others to root out that abuse? As we are probably all aware, social work staff are on low pay; they are poorly trained, opportunities are few and far between; and they suffer from inadequate resources. It would appear that those staff are in a worse position than the average housing officer, and it is lamentable that they will be the vanguard for many of the young children who will be looked after, we hope, under the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) mentioned how impressed he is with Sure Start, and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) also said that parents must have a say, but neither of them picked up the fact that that already exists in a charity called Home-Start—not Sure Start, but Home-Start—which is volunteer driven and professionally organised. I have met the local Home-Start team in my constituency, and the lady who runs it, managing 30 or so volunteers, was previously a social worker. She said that she had initially been extremely sceptical about Home-Start, but she experienced a conversion to its importance because she could see that it was about prevention rather than cure. She said that today's social workers are striving and moving from crisis to crisis. That cannot be right: we cannot allow social workers to do what needs to be done under the Bill if that is what is happening to them.
	To put it starkly, with £1,000 a year, Home-Start can deliver what is needed during a child's life to help parents be good parents. For those families, £1,000 a year can probably mean safeguarding spending the £1,000 a week that it would cost if that child went into care. So there are real lessons. The whole of Home-Start in Taunton costs £60,000 a year—admittedly, some of that is funded by Sure Start, but that sum represents the cost of looking after one child in care in Taunton. That is a very powerful, stark statistic.
	In Somerset, probably as in every area, the education authority and social services are undertaking a big review, but I get the impression from speaking to David Taylor, the officer in charge who has been tasked with putting together a plan for Somerset, that the Government just want to wave a wand and make everything happen in all those areas. Things probably will not just happen.
	The emphasis that those in Somerset have to place on a reform agenda to put children at the heart of their policies, protecting children at risk and those with needs, will create huge ructions in my constituency and the other constituencies in Somerset. They are intensely aware of the need to make improvements in other areas where children are involved, such as children's mental health care, which is currently being poorly delivered in Somerset, even on their own admission. They hope to remove the barriers to achievement, but they have to be mindful that they do not go too far in pushing the principle of inclusion. So there are concerns in Somerset—very much so—in trying to implement such a Bill.
	The possible costs have hardly been touched on in the debate. It has cost Hertfordshire more than £7 million to implement such proposals, and I am told that those involved are considering change again. In Somerset, the first year of full implementation is expected to cost £1 million, with another £1 million in year two. To put that into perspective, we are looking at a budget of about £60 million.
	Engaging schools will be very difficult. That is obvious and important, but it will not be particularly easy to get school governors to take up this issue, with all its complexity, and their efforts will go into all the other bits of paper that they finally have to get round to looking at. The pace of change is therefore at some risk. Somerset will want to implement the Bill by 2006, but the impression I get is that it has until 2008, and it will not be a huge problem if it has to take that time. I do not think that is what Lord Laming envisaged when he suggested that these things should be implemented quickly, within two years of the date of his inquiry report.
	There are problems involved with linking the Bill to the health agenda. There is no requirement for a health authority to do anything whatever. We will not be able to rely on Action for Somerset Health, which is made up of representatives of the county council and other individuals interested in health getting together, to push things forward, because it seems to lack teeth at the moment, as do the patient forums—perhaps because they have not been around for long enough. However, we expect them to take up cudgels under the Bill and work with social services and the education authority. I am told that the national service framework contains no specific targets for children, so it is extremely difficult to know how we will measure progress.

Stephen Ladyman: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. The national service framework for children will be mandatory on the national health service in its entirely throughout the 10-year life span.

Adrian Flook: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I am only reporting the way in which senior officers in a well respected county council perceive the situation. They think that there are currently no targets for children, so they do not know how to plan how they will go forward next year.
	There will be a complex process of change in even a reasonably small authority such as Somerset county council, and it will not be easy to point 700 staff in the right direction. After the niggling worries about the children's fund earlier this year, when budgets could be set yet slashed in the future, a lot of people who were once bitten will be twice shy. That means that change could be delayed beyond "as soon as possible"—although that is what we all want—which would be a shame and a pity not only for the way in which people regard the laws that we make but for the children who will suffer as a consequence.

Martin Caton: I shall be brief because I know that several hon. Members wish to contribute to this important debate. I shall focus the main thrust of my remarks on the Bill's impact on Wales and Welsh children, but before I do so I must mention other issues that have been raised in the debate.
	I welcome the Bill, which comes as a direct result of the horrifying treatment and tragic death of Victoria Climbié. The approach in large parts of the Bill is exactly right because it tries to establish integrated children's services; extends the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; improves information sharing within and among responsible agencies; provides for better regulation of private fostering; and introduces a new duty on local authorities to promote the educational attainment of looked-after children. All that good stuff is important.
	Like other hon. Members, however, I believe that there are gaps in the Bill, and areas of policy on which we are not going far enough. I, too, received the briefing on the Bill from the Refugee Children's Consortium, which makes a powerful case for specific provisions to ensure that refugee children are better protected. Like the consortium and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I do not know of a good reason to omit agencies with responsibility for immigration and asylum from the list of agencies in clause 8 with a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when discharging their normal functions. If we really mean that every child matters, surely those who are responsible for immigration removal centres, the National Asylum Support Service and those who deal with refugee children at ports of entry should be included on the list.
	Despite Lord Lester's amendment in the other place, the Bill does not take the opportunity that we should grasp to deal with the physical punishment of children. If we start with the knowledge that physical punishment is an ineffective and counterproductive method of disciplining children, as we should; consider research from Save the Children and others showing the physical and emotional damage to children that such punishment causes; recognise, as we all can, the essential inequality of letting only one group of human beings—the most vulnerable group, which is our children—be beaten; consider our international responsibilities, especially under the UN convention on the rights of the child, which protects children from all forms of physical violence; and examine the actual experience of European countries that have removed the legal defence for the physical chastisement of children, we must conclude that now is the right time to do the right thing and completely abolish the 1860 defence of reasonable chastisement.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I believe that we should have a free vote on this issue.
	I am worried about how well the new children's commissioner for England will be able to function. While her or his powers have been improved as a result of Lords amendments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children made it clear that she wants to take a different approach to the commissioner from the one adopted in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and will seek to reverse the changes made by the Lords. If she maintains that approach, there is a serious danger that the children of England will get a second-class service from their commissioner. As I represent a Welsh constituency, perhaps I should leave it to Members representing English constituencies to explore the issue further.
	I shall concentrate on the ramifications for Wales and Welsh children if the role of the children's commissioner for England is established as the Government intend. First, however, I accept that most of the Bill—which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, includes many provisions that apply to Wales—is very good and deserves our support. I particularly welcome the transfer of responsibilities from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service to the National Assembly for Wales, which is sensible and will facilitate joined-up government on children's policy and services in Wales.
	The position of the new commissioner is a little unclear. In the original Bill, she or he was meant to encourage people engaged in children's activities to take account of children's views, advise the Secretary of State on those views, consider and research the operation of complaints procedures affecting children and any other matters relating to the interests of children. They would not initiate their own investigations, but could be required to undertake such investigations by the Secretary of State. In the other place, the commissioner's powers were beefed up so that they could initiate inquiries. Even if that power is allowed to remain, the commissioner can still be directed by the Secretary of State, which raises a serious question about their independence. In the original Bill, the English commissioner was intended to act as UK commissioner on non-devolved matters, but an amendment was accepted in the other place to remove that responsibility. Amendments to extend the existing powers of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland commissioners to cover non-devolved matters, however, were not accepted. We are therefore in limbo, but I assume from my right hon. Friend's opening remarks that the Government intend to introduce an amendment to reinstate their original position so that the English commissioner will have a UK-wide remit on non-devolved matters.
	I hope that the Government can be persuaded not to introduce such an amendment, and will take the alternative route of extending the powers of the other commissioners to cover all matters affecting children in their country. The problem with the Government's approach, especially for us in Wales, is that it will lead to confusion for our children, and will threaten the independence of the Welsh commissioner, which was a central tenet in the creation of that post. How will children know which commissioner is responsible for which policy area in Wales? The Government want to provide the English commissioner with a role in Wales on non-devolved matters, but they do not intend to establish an office there. It has been suggested again today that the Welsh commissioner should act as an agent for the English commissioner on non-devolved matters, and a memorandum of understanding was mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Leaving aside the question of independence, to which I shall return in a minute, even if that were achievable, the situation remains confused. On some matters, the Welsh commissioner could act on a child's behalf, but on others they could not do so unless the English commissioner thought that the child's problem had a wider significance.
	One consequence was spelled out by Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, who gave the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs a telling example:
	"Not all children are able to receive an equal service from the Children's Commissioner for Wales despite similar circumstances. This may even be the case where they are receiving services from the same provider. For example, two children from the same street, but resident in Hillside secure accommodation in Neath, might be affected by this anomaly. One might be placed by the local authority, and the other via the youth justice system. The [Welsh] Commissioner has extensive powers in respect of the child placed by the local authority, but only the power to make representations via the National Assembly in respect of the other child. The establishment of the new 'UK' Children's Commissioner as set out in Part 1 of the Bill offers such a child or young person no greater support or protection than at present, because of the role's limited powers."
	Surely the simple, straightforward way to eliminate that differential treatment is to extend the powers of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland commissioners to non-devolved matters.
	The other main reason for doing that is to honour the determination of this Parliament and of the National Assembly for Wales to have a completely independent Children's Commissioner for Wales. I cannot see how that is possible if the Welsh commissioner ends up acting as a sort of agent for the English commissioner on non-devolved matters. As has been pointed out, the English commissioner can be directed by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to undertake inquiries. The result will be the Welsh commissioner, previously wholly independent of any political direction, including that of the Welsh Assembly, doing the bidding of the British Government. We do not have to do it that way. It would be much better and much more straightforward and understandable for the children who our commissioners are created to champion simply to make each commissioner in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland responsible for all policy areas that have an impact on children.
	The Bill is a valuable and important measure. Let us use the next stages of its consideration to make it even better.

Virginia Bottomley: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I offer profuse apologies to the Minister for Children—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will pass them on to her—and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for my late arrival as a result of an unavoidable commitment, of which I had informed Mr. Speaker. I thank my office team for recording faithfully every comment made by the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend, so that I could have the benefit of their wise words.
	I pay tribute to the army of extraordinarily impressive charities that we have in this country that are concerned with children. I am thinking of the quality of their briefings, their campaigns and their commitment to improving the well-being of children. It is a privilege to work with them. I should declare my interest as one who spends her time bringing talented people in to run public services and many of our leading charities, so that the policy that we debate here can be turned into the reality of change on the ground. When talking about the Climbié case and the need for change, Herbert Laming did not quarrel with the basic elements of the legislation to which the hon. Member—I almost said my hon. Friend—for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred, the Children Act 1989, which I had the privilege to implement and which established the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. Lord Laming focused on the tragedy, the horror, and the lack of proper management and leadership and of effective implementation in the Climbié case. That was shameful for all of us.
	I was the Minister who signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so I have enjoyed the many comments about it in the debate. At the time, I was agnostic about the role of a children's commissioner and whether it was the right time to introduce one, but I am delighted that the Bill contains a commitment to establish a children's commissioner for England. I share with others the strong belief that the Government should hold true to the principles established in another place. I give particular credit to my noble Friend Earl Howe, but many others worked with him to ensure that the changes were made.
	The deliberate killing of or cruelty to a child is an obscene and disgraceful event. I speak not only of Victoria Climbié, but of the hundreds of children killed during the appalling events in Beslan in Russia last week. However, we should not let our minds be clouded to the enormity of the suffering of many other children who are neglected, but whose cases do not give rise to sensational public headlines or shock us to such an extent. Millions of children are dying in Darfur in Sudan, but closer to home we must face the appalling fact of 80 children each year being killed by their parents or carers, and almost 200 children each year being killed in road traffic accidents.
	The point of real concern, which many here will share with me, is that around 200 children each year take their own lives. I welcome the comment there has been about the disgraceful state of affairs in our young offender institutions. If I had to be frank, I would say that the only time during my 20 years in this place when I was unhappy about the steps taken by my party and my Government was when we introduced secure training centres. My disappointment when Labour came to power in 1997 was that the Government accelerated that programme rather than reversing it. I do not think it right that a prison institution and its officers should care for children. I am deeply concerned about the state of the criminal justice system, and we should do much more through this Bill and in many other ways to rectify the balance.
	The greatest threat to the health of our generation, according to the World Health Organisation, is adolescent mental health. We cannot debate the Bill without taking more seriously what is happening to the emotional and mental health of our adolescents. Only today, a preliminary report of an article to be produced in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry—a journal in which I published a number of articles long ago when I had a proper job—describes the deteriorating mental health of many of our adolescents. Holland has not seen that deterioration, and in the United States it was arrested. Here, we have seen, year after year, numbers of children with nervous disorders—not just suicide and self-harm but a great range of conditions.
	I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health to say what he is doing to ensure that child and adolescent mental health services are given the proper priority and recognition by primary care trusts. We all appreciate what has happened in the health service: if a thing is not targeted, it does not count; if it is not a waiting time or one of the key priorities, it is of pretty peripheral significance. How will the Minister ensure that, at a time when only 5 per cent. of spending on mental health services is on children, we can make a reality of the aims and aspirations of the Bill? How will he deliver that on the ground and in practice?
	There is similar concern about the challenges and dilemma of parenting. I am delighted that so many hon. Members have referred to Home-Start. The late Lord Joseph made his original speech about the cycle of deprivation at a pre-school playgroup annual meeting in about 1973. I was there as the Child Poverty Action Group representative, I am pleased to say. Lord Joseph was the great champion of Home-Start as an organisation to befriend vulnerable parents. I ask Members to think about the dilemma that parents face. They are supposed now almost to be techno-managers. They, too, have the target culture as they ask whether their children will survive tests at school and achieve under all the different criteria. Is there space, still, just for nurture and parenting?
	The Government speak much about the steps that they have taken to promote children and family life. They stand accused of behaving aggressively in their early years in government towards mothers who wished to stay at home. Single mothers may have an awful lot to contend with, but, almost coercively, they were expected to go out to work, and that caused a great deal of distress and worry in many groups who believe that parenting should be valued, difficult as it is and unsuccessful as many of us have been in surviving the task, without having had to deal with the workplace.
	I should like to speak briefly about the progress that Surrey has made in taking forward its policies. The director of education there has become the director of children's services. He is one of the most highly regarded officers in that county council. How delighted I am that he has taken that step.
	What steps will Ministers take to monitor the quality of people who take over as directors of children's services? Surrey has a particularly impressive record, both in education and in social service delivery, and I am impressed with the decision that the council has made, but I am concerned that in authorities where the director of social services is appointed, and where the educational support services and psychological services support the director of children's services, there may be a greater polarity between the culture of testing attainment in schools and the more nurturing culture in social services and social care.
	The House should be under no illusion about the clash of cultures between the social care models, the education models, the health model and the criminal justice models. Professionals in all those areas have trained separately and work separately. Often, their budgets are separate. We can speak fine words about collaboration and co-ordination, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. I do not seek to undermine the aims and objectives of the Bill, but simply describing a structure is not sufficient to ensure that we get the psychology and the relationships right to deliver the change for which we are all hoping.
	Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened to the chief nursing officer's review of the health visiting, nursing and midwifery contribution to this crucial work. For a young family, one of the most acceptable professionals on the doorstep is the health visitor. The health visitor has licence to see the child with no clothes on, and licence to ask all sorts of personal questions. Would that the training of health visitors included a little more on the emotional and relationship side. Nevertheless, health visitors are a crucial element. I am sure the Minister has taken to heart the concern about shortages of social work staff and many others.
	Will the Minister also respond briefly to last week's report by Baroness Helena Kennedy about paediatric pathologists? Tragically, parents do kill their children, but it is equally appalling wrongly to accuse parents of damaging their children. The evidence is that there are fewer and fewer expert paediatricians who want to be expert witnesses, and a real lack of paediatric pathologists as a result of the present circumstances.
	There are all manner of other points that I should have liked to address, but there is no time if my hon. Friends are to make a contribution. On reasonable chastisement, I apologise to my children and grandchildren if, on occasions, I have unreasonably chastised them. I do not want to translate into law a measure that might criminalise my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) or, while she lasts, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey. I can only say to my children and grandchildren—all four of them—in mitigation for the moments of unreasonable chastisement that sometimes a smack is preferable to cruel, harsh words. When one hears the lengths that parents who never smack their children sometimes go to, one feels that a smack would be less cruel than the ongoing programme of rebuke and humiliation. I may be persuaded otherwise as the years go by, perhaps in time for my great-grandchildren.
	The Bill is important. There are a great number of matters to be discussed in Committee and I wish it well. We have the lowest birth rate that we have ever had in this country. We owe it to those fewer children to do our very best to protect and safeguard them.

Liz Blackman: I shall be brief. Like every other hon. Member, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill which, by putting the needs of children at its heart, represents a step change. Its timing should be set in context. It builds upon a huge commitment to meet children's needs, both through the amount of investment and funding that my Government have put into children's services and support services since 1997, and through innovative programmes that are admired on both sides of the House, such as Sure Start and quality protects.
	The Bill builds on structures at a local level and provides for new ways of working and for changing cultures. Many gaps still exist, so the legislation is timely. The Bill creates a statutory framework of co-operation between local authorities and relevant partners, so that universal and specialist services can work together.
	I was extremely pleased by the wideness of the consultation, which included at its heart not only statutory and voluntary bodies, but children themselves. It is also worth noting, as many hon. Members have, that when the Bill was in the other place, both sides adopted a spirit of co-operation, which explains the extent to which the Bill was amended before it came here.
	I welcome the commissioner's role, which is a huge strategic position promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children and representing their views. I am pleased that the commissioner's focus of accountability to Parliament is set against outcomes, which is crucial, and am also pleased that the commissioner will be free to engage with all sectors and to investigate and report on all areas of children's lives.
	Like many hon. Members, I believe that the commissioner's role should not be investigative or casework-based, which would detract from the commissioner's opportunities to listen to children, but to ensure that services are responsive and acceptable and to influence policy making accordingly. That model will be far more effective than an investigative approach. A Lords amendment means that the commissioner can investigate cases that raise wider issues of public policy, and I look forward with interest to the amendments to clause 2.
	On clause 7, which concerns co-operation to improve well-being, it is logical that the local authority is the lead body with responsibility for promoting co-operation between itself and its partners. Clause 7 also promotes the development of children's trusts. That will put decision making in the hands of local partnerships, which will be able to commission services. Crucially, it will also enable budgets to be pooled, creating flexibility to meet local needs.
	On clause 8, I am concerned that schools and general practitioners are not included on the face of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister explaining how schools can be drawn into that chain of responsibility and accountability without their being included in the Bill.
	Clause 9 provoked much debate in the other place and many hon. Members have stressed that it is crucial for all children, because it will help professionals identify those children who do not access appropriate services. It is not intended exclusively to support children at risk of harm, which is right because other children in the system, such as children with disabilities, trauma or learning difficulties, also need to be picked up. Clause 9 is central to protecting children from harm, and the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation and the Association of Directors of Social Services—social services are often at the sharp end of criticism on child protection—fully support it.
	All the cases that I know of child abuse that resulted in murder are characterised by professionals holding some information but not sharing it. In the Victoria Climbié case, two housing departments, four social services departments, two child protection teams from the Met, a specialist centre run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and two hospitals, where she was admitted and harm was suspected, were involved, but did not share the information.
	Three years ago, Chelsea Brown, a two-year-old girl in my constituency, was murdered by her father. Information was held by social services and by health services, but it was not shared.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that it is crucial that the clause allow us to reach a conclusion on who has access to the database. I am pleased that the Lords accepted the amendment on what information is to go on to the database. The issue is going out to consultation and there will be affirmation in Parliament once the guidance is presented. It is crucial to share information, because in all these dreadful cases the evidence is there to see. Although it is not a substitute for action, it will enhance and make robust the system, save lives, and support children.
	Sharing information is a good thing. However, as chair of the all-party group on autism, I want to point out, as has the National Autistic Society, that some behaviours associated with autism can lead professionals, especially those with a low awareness of autism, mistakenly to believe that a child is showing signs of abuse. Indeed, until the 1960s autism was known as refrigerator mother syndrome. I thank the Minister for assuring me that regulations relating to the database will be carefully scrutinised and that the Department will continue to be alert to ensure that such misdiagnosis is avoided.
	On clause 14, the director of children's services is a key role and I agree with the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) that it is essential that directors' performance be properly monitored. The appointment of such key people should be made as open as possible in terms of criteria, job specification and reasons for choice, as well as follow-up monitoring. The lead council member for children is important in ensuring a high profile at political level. I note that most directors will be in place by 2006 and a few more by 2008. Why will it take two extra years to put the final pegs in the hole?
	I shall finish to allow other Members to have their say. This is an excellent Bill that offers us huge opportunities to do things better, but it is not a substitute for good professional judgment and practice or for high-quality management and the continued development of capacity and services. We must do both. Bills do not replace people; it is talented, committed professionals who will, together with the provisions in the Bill, make a difference to children's lives.

Roger Williams: I shall be brief. I support the general thrust of the Bill, but I urge the Minister to take account of the amendments that were made in another place, which I believe add to the measure and make it more effective.
	I want to comment on the Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Minister is putting legislation before Welsh children's interests. Much has been said about children's interests being paramount, but I agree with Baroness Finlay, who said:
	"I must ask whether the bureaucracy of the devolution settlement is getting in the way of the arrangements that would serve children best."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1245.]
	Let me give one example. As I understand the Bill, the children's commissioner in England would not have the ability to take up individual cases brought by children but could only deal with the wider national interest. Let us imagine the position of a child who, believing that he or she had suffered an injustice, would have to consider first whether the matter was devolved or reserved, and secondly whether it affected them as an individual or had a wider national interest. All that would be at a time when the child was under great stress because of the injustice that he or she believed had been suffered.
	The only way out is to do as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) suggested and use the opportunity that the Bill affords to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland.
	I make one last comment as the Minister returns to her seat. She has done what I believed was impossible: she has united the body politic in Wales on this matter. All Welsh Members of Parliament, all Assembly Members and all local authorities and non-governmental organisations believe that the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales should be extended. I hope that the Minister can do that.

Julie Morgan: I shall be brief. I want to make three points. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which is an excellent measure. I especially welcome some of the proposals for Wales. It is excellent that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is being devolved to Wales. It is right that it is under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Children in England, and it should be under that of the Minister with responsibility for children in Wales. It has always been difficult for CAFCASS Cymru and some of the issues that relate to Wales to be understood in London. That body's devolution to Wales means that it will be possible to examine the issues that are relevant to Wales, especially the Welsh language, and that the voices of children in Wales will be heard more clearly in CAFCASS. I strongly support that provision.
	Secondly, I want to consider the children's commissioner, about whom we have had many discussions. The Children's Commissioner for Wales has had a strong impact. He was appointed as a result of the Waterhouse inquiry, which showed that children in Wales had no rights and no proper complaints system. Children in Wales were seen and not heard. The office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales has given authority, credibility and recognition to children's rights in Wales. It has made a huge difference. The commissioner has published two full annual reports. One was on child poverty, which had implications in the Assembly and led to its establishing an action programme. The second report, which has been mentioned today, was on child and adolescent services. Consequently, there is more funding from the Welsh Assembly Government for such work.
	There is no doubt that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has substantially influenced policy in the Assembly. Although he is funded by the Assembly, he and his office are totally independent and able to be very critical. They have been critical of the Welsh Assembly Government and of Westminster. We should welcome that, because we want an independent body that can be critical. Some elements of the post of English children's commissioner need to be considered because it is essential that the Secretary of State should not have power of direction over the commissioner.
	I regret that there was not more consultation with the Children's Commissioner for Wales before the Bill was framed because we could have learned a lot from each other. The importance of devolution is that sometimes we do things differently but it is vital to learn from the experiences in the devolved bodies. I therefore regret that there was not more consultation, but I am pleased that the Government accepted the amendment that provided for the children's commissioner in England to take account of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I hope that that will be maintained.
	The Children's Commissioner in Wales takes up individual cases. That is important, because if we are to be open to the voices of children in Wales, we need to be able to take up the cases that those children bring to us. I am also pleased that children will be involved in the appointment of the English children's commissioner. That happened in Wales, and it is important to involve children from all parts of society, including disabled children and children from ethnic minorities, in these appointments.
	We must also resolve the issue of non-devolved matters and how they are dealt with. It is important that there should be one voice in Wales, and the easiest and most effective solution to this issue is for the Children's Commissioner in Wales to have the power to take up the non-devolved matters. I know that that is what the commissioner himself is suggesting, with the support of the commissioners in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would be the most sensible and effective way forward, and it would ensure that the voice of the children would clearly be heard. For those reasons, I believe that the Bill should be amended.
	On the physical punishment of children, I believe that they should have the same protection from assault as adults do. It would be a terrible shame if the Bill went through without our having taken this issue forward. I do not support clause 49, which was passed in another place. In fact, I think that it would make the situation worse. We would be better off without it, because it appears to condone some form of physical punishment. I do not see how we can support the idea of a fully grown adult hitting a small child, and it is essential that we do something about this issue.

Betty Williams: Can my hon. Friend give me one good reason why we cannot have a piece of legislation in this country similar to the ones that have proved themselves in countries such as Sweden for many years?

Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard today about the examples of other countries that have gone forward in this way, and we should do so as well. I am dismayed that the Government are not going to give Members a free vote on this important issue of conscience. I hope that, by the time we reach Report and Third Reading, they will at least agree that we should be able to exercise our conscience on an issue on which we would traditionally expect to have a free vote. I feel strongly that we should have a free vote, and I hope that the Government will reconsider this issue and think about their duty to children, the most vulnerable members of our society, and get rid of the defence of reasonable chastisement.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome the Bill, and I just want to make a few remarks on one specific point relating to housing on which it is unclear. Clause 7(2)(a) to (e) contains five categories that are supposed to cover all the needs of a child. There is specific reference to health and education, but no explicit reference to housing. It is assumed that the Children Act 1989 contains an obligation on social services to ensure that the housing needs of children are met, but this has recently been interpreted by the courts as ensuring that the housing needs of children in an area are met generally, rather than ensuring that the specific needs of an individual child are met. That is a whole different ball game. Homeless families are therefore told that they can go to social services, but that their children might be taken into care. This virtually takes us back to "Cathy Come Home", and it illustrates the need to tackle homelessness, to keep families together and to house children with their parents when that is appropriate for them.
	The importance of housing for children was well recognised in "Every Child Matters", in which homelessness was identified as the factor second most closely associated with poor outcomes for children. Unfortunately, this recognition was not carried through to the various structures and procedures needed to overcome the risks involved. The Green Paper was not explicit about that; nor is the Bill. That will leave a major gap in the services needed to protect the welfare of children. I have discussed this a number of times with my right hon. Friend the Minister, along with some of the cases that I have dealt with in my constituency that have resulted in children living in appalling conditions, including that of a woman with three small children who was the victim of domestic violence. She was rejected for housing, declared intentionally homeless and has had to live in two tiny rooms in a refuge for more than 15 months.
	There is clear evidence that the number of families being turned down for housing on the grounds of being intentionally homeless is on the increase. Intentionality was cited as a reason for refusing housing in 5,000 cases in 1997–98. In March this year, the figure leapt to 13,000, and in my region, the figures almost trebled from 250 to 700 over the same period. Clearly, something needs to happen for families to be refused such housing, be it antisocial behaviour or rent arrears. There is a clear desire not to drive a coach and horses through local authorities' housing powers, but the fact is that those families do not go away, and some way must be found to protect children from the consequences of their parents' homelessness, other than taking them into care.
	I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider three issues. First, will she make sure that priority is given to homelessness as a risk to the well-being of children; that "Every Child Matters" is made a reality in the legislation; and that she considers some of the proposals to do that, including those that have come forward from Shelter? Secondly, will she work with colleagues across government to ensure that there is provision, possibly in the form of special accommodation, and possibly through support services, to enable antisocial families to rehabilitate themselves and sustain independent tenancies, as in the special projects in Dundee, Manchester and north Wales? Thirdly, will she make sure that the possibly unintended consequences for children of other aspects of Government policy are fully understood, so that if more families are being declared intentionally homeless, or evicted from their accommodation, careful consideration is given to what happens to the children? Perhaps when there are two parents in the family, and when one parent works, they have more options. It seems likely, however, that single parents, who have less income and fewer options, will end up in a complete housing dead end, with devastating consequences for their children.
	The provision of decent-quality, secure housing is one of the basics for the welfare of children. In many of the appalling child abuse scandals that we have seen, insecure housing has been a factor. As I said, the role of housing is well recognised in the Green Paper, but many children still do not have the housing protection that they need, unless they are taken away from their parents and placed in care, when the outcomes for them are often worse. The legislation will not introduce the measures that are needed to get to grips with that, and I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that the opportunities provided by this legislation are taken to put that right for children.

Eleanor Laing: This has been a good-natured and amicable debate, most unusually. We have a general consensus that, as the Minister said at the beginning of her remarks, every child matters. We all agree on that, and it has been instructive to listen to contributions from both sides of the House this evening. I pay tribute to Lord Laming, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnado's, Women's Aid and many other excellent voluntary organisations, whose work, not only recently but for a long time, has informed our debate. We welcome all the help and support that they gave us on practical matters.
	We agree with the two principles that the Minister expressed in her speech—the importance of putting children first and the essential necessity of early intervention. Our arguments have been constructive and designed to improve the Bill, which I hope that the Minister will appreciate. I have never doubted that her intentions are good. As we examine the practicalities, however, we will suggest some better ways of proceeding, all with the very best of intentions, and putting every child first.
	The hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and various other Members have given us the benefit of their valuable experience in Wales, which already has a Children's Commissioner. I am certain that we will all pay attention to their contributions when we discuss these matters in Committee.

David Miliband: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is watching you!

Eleanor Laing: I do not care if he is. That is all right with me.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made wide-ranging points about many aspects of children's lives, but I should say to her that it is essential for us now to concentrate on the key aims that the Bill can achieve. We must not dilute it by looking too widely.
	Not for the first time, the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) spoke at length about Sure Start. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford will be disappointed to hear me say that he is absolutely right. Many aspects of Sure Start are working well, and we will build on them when we return to government.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning my remarks about Sure Start. I have challenged her on past occasions by asking why, given her praise for Sure Start—which I welcome—she did not vote for the money that pays for it.

Eleanor Laing: We have guaranteed the funding of Sure Start. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to hear me say that, because he wants to paint me as the wicked witch who does not care about children, but I am afraid that I do care about them. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I hope I am not disappointing my hon. Friends.
	The hon. Member for Wakefield will, I hope, forgive me for having left the Chamber during his speech. Just as he was saying—quite rightly—that the most important influence on a child's development was his or her home life with his or her parents, I realised that it was 3 minutes to 7 and that my own three-year-old son was about to go to bed, which he could not happily do until I had phoned to say good night. I hope I shall be forgiven for my absence from the Chamber for what I consider to be my most important duty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is right to defend clause 2 in its present form. To be effective, a commissioner must be independent, responsible not to a politically partisan Secretary of State but to Parliament.
	Both my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke about the database. I share my hon. Friend's concern. If a database is overloaded with the names of some 11 million children, the vast majority of whom are not at risk, it is likely that the relevant names of those who actually are at risk will be overlooked. It is a bit like trying to find the relevant e-mails among all the spam that comes to all of us every day. I hope that "spam" is parliamentary language, Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made his usual thoughtful speech. I pay tribute to him for his many years' experience in this area. Amazingly, I agree with him on two important points. The first rule for an MP should indeed be to ask himself, "Is what we are about to do good enough for my own child?" The answer to that question must always be yes, if the measure deserves to be passed by the House. I also agree that this is the most important Bill that the House will consider this week. That is not what the media will say—they prefer foxhunting—but those of us who are here this evening know that it is on what happens to families and children that the future of our society depends, not on the sporting habits of part of the population.
	The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is right about separated parents. The welfare of a child is usually best served by the maintaining of contact with both parents. Only in unusual circumstances—where criminal or unreasonable behaviour has occurred—is that not the case. I take issue with the Minister when she says that it is not possible to have a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting while also putting the child first. Of course it is possible to do both those things—indeed, we must do so in order to preserve the coherence and importance of families. In fact, is not only possible; it is also right.
	The Minister's mistake is that she is concerned with rights—with the view, "This is mine; this is what I want"—rather than with duties and responsibilities. Rights exist only if there are corresponding duties and responsibilities to give those rights. Parents have responsibilities to their children before they have rights over them. This is about not a conflict of rights, but a sharing of responsibilities that we should try to achieve for future generations.

Hilton Dawson: Does the hon. Lady not accept that it was her colleague, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), who abolished the concept of parental rights in 1989?

Eleanor Laing: No.
	I understand that while we have been debating this important Bill, a man dressed as Batman has climbed on to Buckingham palace. [Interruption.] I agree that that seems to be a security breach. The man appears to represent a group called Fathers 4 Justice, but he is doing no service to the many separated fathers who are trying to do their best for their children. Unfortunately, his irresponsible behaviour tarnishes the reputation of the many organisations that are well meaning and responsible in their efforts to achieve equal parenting for children, where that is the right thing to do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) spoke with passion, as ever, about the lessons from his own constituency. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) is absolutely right to demand a free vote on the defence of reasonable chastisement and the whole issue of smacking. I do not want tabloid coverage of the key aims of this vital Bill to be swept away by an over-concentration on the issue of smacking. But the very fact that we are discussing this issue tonight will itself help to open up the public debate and raise awareness of the problems arising from physical chastisement.
	What our society and vulnerable children in particular need is not changes to the criminal law, fine words and more rules and regulations imposed from above. Rather, what is needed is a complete change in attitude, which can come about only through a consensus of public opinion and a change from within. So let us hope that the newspapers are right about this issue, but not in a jocular, silly or oppressive way. We need to say that physical chastisement is never the best way to exert discipline on a child. A small amount might sometimes be justified, but we have to draw the line at a very low threshold. The right way to do that is not by changing the criminal law.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) made a very important contribution to the debate, and I pay tribute to the many achievements for which she was responsible when in government. I agree with what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said about homelessness and the need for housing. I hope that we will be able to discuss these matters in greater detail in Committee, and I can assure the Minister that when we do, we will co-operate to the best of our ability. We commend the Bill and thoroughly support it, and we are glad to see it at last before this House.

Stephen Ladyman: We have heard, as I expected we would, about a number of cases in which children were let down, sometimes with terrible consequences. It is crucial that we learn the lessons of those cases. The Government and all their partners, including the voluntary, community and private sectors, have a responsibility to work together and with children and families to do so. We must ensure that we provide services for children and young people that are built around a proper understanding of their needs. It is particularly important for the most vulnerable that services focus on prevention and that there are clear lines of accountability.
	The Bill will play a key role in achieving that. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children said, the legislative measures that we are debating today are only a small part of our wider programme of change for children, building on the vision set out in "Every Child Matters". They are vitally important none the less.
	One of the things that we must all work on is more effective joint working between different disciplines at every level of the system, including central Government, which is why a Health Minister is winding up the debate. The Department of Health continues to have responsibility for children's health. That means that my right hon. Friend and I have to work very closely and set an example from the top.
	At the centre of the programme for change are the outcomes set out in "Every Child Matters"—being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and economic well-being. The outcomes are derived from extensive consultation with children and young people themselves. Central to our agenda is ensuring that the outcomes, rather than process or the bureaucracy, become the focus of policy making, planning, commissioning and delivery of all children's services.
	Good health in its fullest sense is essential to well-being. It is crucial that we ensure that health agencies and professionals work with their colleagues in education, social care, youth justice agencies and those in the private and voluntary sectors. There must be shared understanding and effective multi-disciplinary working at every level, and we must ensure that the legal framework and the messages sent out from central Government support that process. That means that the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills must be jointly responsible for ensuring that the children's trust approach works. That approach encourages health agencies and their local partners to find new and innovative ways to improve services for children, including preventive services.
	The Government are continuing to drive the development of good practice in this area, with provision being built around the needs of children and their families. Measures in the Bill will enable and incentivise partnership and integration. In particular, the Bill requires local agencies, including health partners, to co-operate to improve well-being and remove barriers to the pooling of budgets and resources. It will also strengthen safeguarding arrangements and ensure that they are properly co-ordinated across local agencies.
	Let me emphasise at this point that health services will not be allowed to stand remote from this agenda. For many children, general practitioners provide the entry point into children's service provision. They are a universal service with the potential to impact on the well-being of all children registered with them. GPs and other primary care professionals operate under contract to primary care trusts. PCTs are subject to the duties in the Bill to co-operate to improve the well-being of children and to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote their welfare.

Virginia Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: I am afraid I will not. If I do not make progress, I will not be able to answer the right hon. Lady's points.
	We are working with PCTs, GPs and the key national representative organisations to ensure that GPs are appropriately tied into these arrangements. However, what is perhaps more crucial is to ensure that GPs are supported in engaging in child-focused, multi-agency or co-located working arrangements and effective sharing of information, where appropriate.
	My right hon. Friend and I have also been working closely together on the preparation of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, which will be published this week. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in congratulating Professor Aynsley-Green on his inclusive approach to producing the new national service framework. The NSF will establish national standards for children's health and social care for the first time in this country—and, to the best of my belief, for the first time in any country. During the 10-year span of the NSF, we will see a step-change in service quality for children. It will play an important role in driving cultural change within health services for children and young people at all levels. At its heart is a fundamental change in the way we think. It will promote a move towards services that are designed around the needs of children and their families, not organisations.
	I turn to some of the comments made in the debate, and I shall start with those made by the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and, in a similar vein, by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I very much enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend, as I normally do, and I can tell him that he will be sadly missed when he leaves this place. All three mentioned the importance of social workers and the need to recruit them. I am happy to say that there are signs that the number of applications for social work training is increasing, but I spotted an important difference between my hon. Friend and the Opposition Members I mentioned. All three willed the ends, but only my hon. Friend joins the Government in willing the means. It is only by increasing the budgets for social services that we will increase the recruitment of social workers. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that the Conservatives would preserve spending on Sure Start, but the shadow Chancellor has committed his party only to preserving spending on schools and health, not on social care or social services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) mentioned the importance of parents. As someone who lost his father a fortnight ago, I know the benefits of having great parents. Sometimes we take them for granted, but it is only when everybody has great parents that we will start to achieve the changes that we are looking for. That means providing parents with the support that they need. The right hon. Lady asked specific questions about expert witnesses and the report that came out last week. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and I pre-empted that report by asking the chief medical officer to review the recruitment and training of expert witnesses. We hope that that review will lead to a way forward. The right hon. Lady also asked about the chief nursing officer's report, and I confirm that that was published on 10 August.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was alone in raising the important issue of housing and homelessness, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has heard what she said. Several hon. Members, including those for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for East Worthing and Shoreham, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Gower (Mr. Caton), mentioned the Lords amendments to clause 2. We do not believe that the current wording would help the commissioner to discharge the strategic role that we intend and we will table amendments in Committee to reverse most of the changes introduced by the amendments made in the Lords. We believe that the commissioner's role should be a strategic one. He should have the opportunity to investigate issues widely and we do not want him to become bogged down in individual cases, as other commissioners sometimes have. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made the point that transport is a children's issue, and I agree. The commissioner that we intend to introduce would be able to write a strategic report about the impact of transport on children because he would not get bogged down in day-to-day issues. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned the fact that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has written two reports. I make no criticism of that commissioner, but had he not put most of his resources into individual cases and then taken the more strategic approach that we propose, he might have been able to produce more than two such reports.
	The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham, for Taunton and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), raised the issue of engaging schools. It will not be possible to deliver on our aim to provide coherent support for children unless we get schools playing a central role. We have many good examples of how extended schools are working well with local partners to do that already and many have been the inspiration for what we are doing. We intend to ensure that schools play a full part.
	Unfortunately, time will not allow me to address all the points that were raised in the debate. However, let me just say that the Bill is one part of the major infrastructure that we are putting in place for children. It will dramatically improve the quality of care for children and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CHILDREN BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Children Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 21st October 2004.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Watson.]
	The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 72.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CHILDREN BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Establishment Of A Community Fisheries Control Agency

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9149/04 and Addendum 1, draft Council Regulation establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy; takes note of the Government's welcome of the proposal and supports the Government's objective of playing a constructive part in detailed discussion of the proposal whilst seeking to ensure that the role of the Agency will not undermine the control and enforcement responsibilities of individual Member States or cut across the policy aim of increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy.—[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.

Buckingham Palace (Security Breach)

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House on the incident earlier today at Buckingham Palace. Following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, I authorised a review of external security at the main royal palaces, which was conducted by the Security Service, MI5. The work resulted in an extensive new alarm and camera system outside and inside the palace and the strengthening of the palace perimeter.
	As the House will be aware, a separate review of the internal security of the royal households also took place earlier this year, but it is not relevant to today's events. The facts as set out to me tonight by the commissioner and deputy commissioner are as follows. At about 2.20 pm this afternoon, three men erected a ladder outside the palace walls. Their presence directly outside the palace triggered an alarm, and police both inside and outside the building took immediate steps to protect the integrity of the palace. An armed police officer on the other side of the railings confronted the intruders as they approached the colonnade. Within minutes, the external perimeter of the palace had been sealed and armed police had secured the palace from within. One of the men moved quickly along the roof of the colonnade adjacent to Constitution hill. Police officers took the entirely correct decision that that individual was a protester not a terrorist. That judgement was made easier by the fact that no members of the royal family were present. The palace, as the House will know, is open to the public at this time of year. It will also be aware that the Metropolitan police have now arrested the protester and one accomplice.
	Sir John Stevens has stated quite clearly tonight that, if the individual had been assessed as a threat, he would have been shot before he could have entered the building. I am also clear that the alarm and camera systems installed over the past three years worked and that the police acted correctly in assessing the threat that he posed. Nevertheless, the speed with which the intruders were able to scale the wall is of concern and the Metropolitan police and my officials are urgently reviewing with the royal household any further measures required. However, it is worth bearing it in mind—this has been true for many years—that the royal family have always wanted the palace to remain accessible to the people of the United Kingdom and tourists from around the world, as it is; they do not want it to become a fortress. I share that view.
	We live in a time of a heightened terrorist threat, when our police and security services are fully stretched in protecting our safety and way of life. While today's protest showed that the alarm and camera system worked, the protester could have been killed and the Metropolitan police have once again been diverted from protecting the public from terrorism by the need to deal with a public stunt. I hope that people who support such action will reflect on that and recognise that it is not just themselves they put at risk by their actions. That is why we treat such incidents with the seriousness they deserve. They should be treated seriously, but they need to be put in their proper context as well.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement and I commend him on coming straight to the House to make it this evening. That at least is exemplary, but it is the only part of this sorry business that is.
	This is the fifth or sixth breach of royal palace security since June last year, following security breaches at Buckingham palace, Windsor castle and the Palace of Westminster. At a time when the terrorist threat has never been so real or so great, the latest episode is extremely serious. The Home Secretary said that the security commission report on a previous breach of security at Buckingham palace is not relevant. I beg to differ. I quote:
	"the most likely source of . . . threat to the Royal Family are from the press and individuals seeking to 'test' security measures or cause embarrassment. But any weakness which can be exploited by these groups can also be exploited by terrorists."
	After the penetration of Windsor castle by Aaron Barschak dressed as Osama bin Laden, the Home Secretary said:
	"I am determined that lessons should be learned from this incident."—[Official Report, 24 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 868.]
	Then, five months later, after the breach of Buckingham palace's security, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement to the House in which he said,
	"It is important to be clear that we . . . learned the lessons of Windsor."—[Official Report, 19 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 777.]
	Nevertheless, the Home Secretary admits today that the speed with which the intruder was able to scale the wall is of concern. He does not point out that the intruder got a further 30 m and climbed another wall. The right hon. Gentleman quotes Sir John Stevens saying that if the intruder had been assessed as a terrorist, he would have been shot. Will the Home Secretary tell us how anyone can ever be sure that such an incident is a prank, and not a terrorist masquerading as a prankster? In the terrible logic of these events, the terrorist has only to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.
	In the hours since the protest, has the Home Secretary been able to establish the following aspects of what went wrong today? Were procedures not followed and the failure therefore operational, or were the recommendations inadequate and the failure therefore one of policy? Does he accept that today's irresponsible action advertises weaknesses in our security and that the long series of security failures could itself encourage terrorist attempts? Will he tell the House tonight how many times Members of this House, the British public and the royal family will have to tolerate such scandalous incompetence?

David Blunkett: I am deeply sorry that the shadow Home Secretary has adopted the tone he has tonight—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. As has already been stated, I always encourage Ministers to come to the House to give statements. This the Home Secretary has done. It does not help when hon. Members barrack a Minister who has been good enough to come to the House.

David Blunkett: The point that I was about to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable role for Opposition parties in holding Ministers to account for their failings. However, an Opposition who aspire to Government have to address issues in the way that they feel they would were they in government. The question raised tonight might have been about whether we had done enough to ensure that the alarm and camera systems worked. The answer to that question is yes, we did so on the recommendation of the Security Service, and we had put new and enhanced measures in place since 2001. I spelled that out. Following the incident at Windsor, having learned the lessons, we massively enhanced the system there.
	Whenever there has been an incursion into a palace, lessons have been learned. They were learned twice in 1992, when there were two incidents at the palace. They were learned again in 1994, and again in 1995, when my predecessors had to deal with similar incursions. We will take any action necessary to ensure that, and we will do so with the royal household—because we are dealing with its palaces, not our own property—in a way that is acceptable to it.
	The cameras worked, the electronic alarms worked and the armed police were in place and secured the palace inside and out. The police also ensured that the individual could move no further and the accomplice was ordered down at gunpoint from the palisade, but subsequently attempted to escape. All those things worked.
	The judgment to which Sir John Stevens referred was whether the police should take pre-emptive action by firing on the individuals concerned. Is that what Opposition Members are advocating? If there are—no matter how good security is, there are and always will be—people who will attempt to breach security, the police have to make a judgment about the level of armed force that they use. They do that day in and day out when any major incident takes place, particularly where there is a threat to life. They did it today, and I commend them for it. The proportionality of their response was in keeping with their judgment. The way they handled the incident ensured that it was dealt with so that people were taken down safely without loss of life or limb.
	Someone engaged today in a publicity stunt and it was a foolish, silly thing to do that has harmed a very reasonable cause. Let me make it clear that if anyone in the House believes that they would have had greater wisdom than the security services, the Metropolitan Police, Ministers and my officials, let him or her get up and say so. Let them not criticise what was done, but say what might have happened had the police not acted in the way that they did to secure the palace and the lives of those involved. The police did not overreact in circumstances that would have led to fatality. In that case, I would have been answering very different questions tonight, and I would have been deeply concerned if I had had to do so.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement and for coming to the House so quickly after this afternoon's events. This is a serious issue, made worse by the fact that we have faced similar breaches of security in the past. I hope that he understands that this is at best highly embarrassing and at worst could have had terrible consequences.
	I agree with the Home Secretary's concerns about the activities of the protesters. Not only do they endanger their own lives but, at a time of heightened terror alert, they make the work of the police even harder.
	The Home Secretary welcomed the fact that the alarm and camera systems worked, but they largely concern detection. Should we not have a system in place that makes the perimeter fence itself physically harder to climb in the first place? When the security commission reported earlier in the year, it found that the existing framework for dealing with security for the royal family was considered sound. Is the Home Secretary still confident about that statement?
	Can the Home Secretary confirm who has responsibility for security in the royal household grounds? Is it the police, the Home Office or the new royal director of security? Does he acknowledge that with three organisations in charge of royal security, there will always be problems with communication and lines of accountability? Will he confirm how many of the commission's recommendations have been put in place? Will he tell the House whether the agreed annual plan on security at the palace has yet been agreed?
	I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that there are only so many times that lessons can be learned and actions promised before the public lose confidence in the security systems that we have at both Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons.

David Blunkett: Of course it is embarrassing when such incidents take place. That is self-evident and it is important to learn from it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned different incidents, and we have to be clear about who is responsible. Inside the Palace of Westminster, it is the House authorities. Inside Buckingham palace, it is the royal family and the new director of security, Brigadier Cook. All the recommendations of the Butler-Sloss commission have been put in place. Security outside the palace and security for the palace itself is the responsibility of the Metropolitan police, and they took that responsibility today, as I spelled out.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about securing the outside fence. We are talking about two fences and a wall. A judgment was made, and nobody raised any objection when we put it in place after 11 September 2001, that the external view of the palace and its environment outside should be maintained as reasonably as possible. Of course it is possible to secure any building in the capital by making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere near that building or monument. That does not take a genius. It just takes great lumps of concrete and a terrible environment that ruins the capital city of our country and ensures that people cannot enjoy walking about and seeing monuments and palaces in a reasonable fashion.
	The royal family do not want that, and I agree with them. We must therefore ensure proportionally that security protects life, while reasonableness secures an environment in which to live, walk and have our social life—an environment that is not destroyed by the terrorists putting us in such fear that we cannot get anywhere near such buildings, including this building, which is the heart of our democracy. It is that proportionality that all of us seek to maintain.

Stuart Bell: The House will welcome the Home Secretary being with us tonight and his reasonable response. Is it not a fact that for centuries in this country we have lived under the rule of law? No matter what the grievance, we must respect the decisions of the courts. Nothing, therefore, justifies taking the law into one's own hands.
	The Home Secretary mentioned proportionality on at least two occasions. While it is right and proper that there be a proportionate response, those who conspire to breach the rule of law should be severely dealt with. Is it not a fact that the conspirators were on television giving interviews for their cause even before their arrest? If we believe in the rule of law, proper sentencing and proper deterrence, will that not deter the publicity stunt?

David Blunkett: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the rule of law. The individuals and their group do a reasonable cause great ill. I agree that action needs to be clear and decisive. I have made it clear that the biggest threat to those individuals was the potential for a misjudgement to be made about their intentions. Had that happened, one or more of them might well be dead tonight. To those who think about carrying out similar stunts in future, I say that the more the tension rises and the greater the cry for action, the more likely it is that those who seek to protect us and the royal family will make a judgment at that moment that could lead to loss of life. That is why the incident was so serious.

James Arbuthnot: What action did the Home Secretary personally take to ensure that this sort of thing did not happen?

David Blunkett: I have held regular meetings with the Metropolitan police. Last week, I held a meeting with Sir Ian Blair, the deputy commissioner, and with the head of SO 13 precisely to review progress in respect of the royal palaces. Had I not been holding regular meetings, and had I not been holding to account last week those who have operational responsibility, I would have been much more sheepish in entering the House for a statement this evening.

Tom Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who seek to publicise what appears to be a responsible cause in such an irresponsible and high-risk manner do that political cause no good at all, not least when seeking to influence Members of the House? In fact, their actions today will have a negative effect on the cause that they were seeking to promote.

David Blunkett: I very much regret that that will be the case. Any judgment about the responsibility of those who seek to act as role models for their own children and to promote a decent, genuine cause concerning the rights of fathers must be that these people do tremendous harm to themselves and to their cause. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he should not be making a statement tonight, because it only gives publicity to people whose views we do not respect? Does he also understand that, when he discusses shooting individuals, he should make it plain that one should consider that course of action only if the threat to third parties is urgent and immediate, which was clearly not present in this case?

David Blunkett: If you will forgive my introducing a lighter note, Mr. Speaker, I have just won a pound, because I bet someone earlier this evening that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make such an intervention. If I had not made a statement tonight, an urgent question would undoubtedly have been tabled tomorrow, and the question why I was not holding myself to account to the House would have been raised.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right on his substantive point, which is why the armed police officers present made a judgment. Police officers make a judgment on whether people who are armed or who threaten to take life in some other way are likely to carry out that threat, which is why the police officers involved today made that judgment.

Keith Simpson: In a perverse way, the activities of a number of individuals—whether they tried to get into Windsor castle, the Palace of Westminster or, indeed, Buckingham palace—have highlighted weaknesses within those palaces' security systems. To pick up one point that the Home Secretary touched on, is he satisfied that the obvious overlapping authority, rather than seamless authority, between those palaces and the Metropolitan police should continue, or, like a number of hon. Members, does he think that one individual should be appointed with the authority to deal with security both inside and outside all royal palaces?

David Blunkett: This is my difficulty in answering that question how I want to: this House, not me, determines the line between security inside and outside the Palace of Westminster. In Buckingham palace—this is, of course, true of other palaces—the decision where the line between the royal household's authority and the Metropolitan police's authority lies is for the royal household. Following the Butler-Sloss report, we agreed a particular approach to the running of the royal household and the internal appointment of a director. It was agreed then that a clear division should be made, by which the Metropolitan police continued to act and to have authority on the palace's external protection. It is not for this House or me to determine tonight any change in that direction, but we must constantly examine whether we can ensure that the meeting of those two different franchises works effectively, and that is our challenge.

Bob Spink: What information has the Home Secretary got for us tonight on the third man who was directly involved in the incident? Will he tell the House how many royal security breaches are allowable before a ministerial resignation is appropriate?

David Blunkett: Obviously not two, otherwise the current Leader of the Opposition would have resigned in 1995. The question is very silly and unworthy of what has been a perfectly reasonable process of questioning and accountability. It is not difficult for the police to identify the third individual involved—after all, television cameras were mysteriously present from the beginning of the incident. Even though the level of apprehending those who commit crimes in our country is less desirable than I would wish, I am sure that we will have him by tomorrow.

Gregory Barker: Does the Home Secretary think that it has been a satisfactory and efficient use of taxpayers' money for him to authorise the spending of hundreds of thousands of pounds on new cameras and alarm systems if the response to those systems is inadequate to prevent intruders from gaining access to the roof and then on to the front of the palace? What is the point of such equipment if the response is too slow?

David Blunkett: The first armed officer's response was rapid. One of the individuals, who was dressed as Robin, gave an interview describing how he was ordered down and was told that he would be shot if he did not do so. That particular individual was apprehended almost immediately. [Interruption.]
	Well, I described in my statement how the danger was sealed off inside the palace and externally. In my view, that is a rapid response. The issue that we have addressed tonight is whether we can put anything in place to distance people around the palace from being able to mount the colonnade in future. That must be discussed with the royal family because of its impact on the palace.

LISBON AGENDA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Keith Vaz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise in this House the very important topic of economic reform of the European Union. The House has never before held an Adjournment debate on the Lisbon agenda. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is here. I congratulate him on his recent return to the powerhouse of the Government's economic policy, which is so different from post office closures. I am also delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe.
	After the Lisbon summit on 24 March 2000, the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House:
	"The Lisbon European Council represents a turning point in Europe's approach to economic and social policy. With a sound macro-economic framework in place and the euro safely introduced, the concrete actions agreed at the Council should help to deliver an increase in the European Union employment rate over the next 10 years."—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 22.]
	That was a bold and impressive commitment by the Prime Minister to the economic reform agenda.
	We are now rapidly approaching the mid-term of the Lisbon agreement, and I value the opportunity to debate Britain's position and what needs to be done to move the agenda forward.
	At the Lisbon European Council, the member states agreed to put economic and social development at the very top of the political agenda in order to create a European Union that would position itself in the lead of the international financial markets. The Lisbon summit committed all national governments to a 10-year programme of reform that was going to make the EU
	"the most dynamic knowledge based economy in the world by 2010".
	I had the privilege of being at the Lisbon Council as the then Minister for Europe. Lisbon was different because it set out a series of benchmarks. Its language was not the usual Eurospeak whereby everybody congratulates everybody about the success of a summit, but a clear and precise list of achievable objectives.
	The key targets and objectives of the Lisbon agenda were employment; research and innovation; the single market; social cohesion; and sustainable development and the environment. The main benchmark on employment was to reach, by 2010, an overall employment rate of 70 per cent. of the EU population. The female employment rate was to rise to 60 per cent., and the employment rate for older workers was to rise to 50 per cent. of the EU population. The Lisbon agenda also set out to increase the retirement age by five years and to reduce the number of 18 to 24- year-olds with only basic secondary education by 50 per cent.
	The benchmarks for research and innovation would see spending on research and development approach 3 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2010 and 100 per cent. of schools connected to the internet by 2002.
	In terms of the development and progress of the single market, the Lisbon agenda stated that we would see full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and of the financial services action plan in 2005. We were to have a transposition rate of 98.5 per cent. for internal market directives. No internal market directives were to be more than two years overdue in their transposition.
	The energy markets were to open for business by 2004 and for domestic users subsequently. Finally, the single market goals set out the prospect of a single European sky by 2004.
	As for social cohesion, Lisbon was meant to halve the number of school leavers not continuing in further education, and reduce the numbers living at risk of poverty by 2010.
	On sustainable development and the environment, visible progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions was suggested. Lisbon set a clear target for electricity generated from renewable resources as well as ending the loss in biodiversity. Lisbon agreed to recycle 55 per cent. of all waste by 2008.
	The United States is the main economic challenge to the European Union. The current EU, at 25, has a single market of approximately 450 million consumers compared with approximately 380 million in the US. At Lisbon, we were informed that the US managed to create 10 million jobs in the 10 previous years, whereas the EU created only 1 million.
	That is why, in my view, it is vital that all member states adopt the euro. Only with the same currency and the minimising of trade barriers can the EU catch up with the US. We have to encourage the citizens of Europe to spend their money in the eurozone instead of elsewhere.
	The Lisbon agenda set out ambitious goals and, although progress has been made, much more needs to be done. It is important is to see the Lisbon agenda as a clear strategy forward for Europe. Only by setting the targets at a high level will we progress in the way that is necessary for the stability and the future of the European Union.
	The mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda, which is due in March 2005, is intended to give an indication of how Europe is doing, and also to consider how the Lisbon goals can be best met by 2010, especially in the light of enlargement and the new member states.
	Although the European Council reaffirms that the process and goals remain valid, a change of pace of reform is needed to achieve the targets by 2010. I want to know from the Financial Secretary the Government's view of the way forward. Overall, a north-south divide has emerged between the relatively good achievers—Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom—and the Mediterranean's less successful countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The employment rate has grown, but not substantially.
	Productivity growth remains low, and substantial weaknesses remain in competitiveness and the development of the internal market. Only last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded a new sense of urgency from Brussels, and rightly said that the so-called Eurocrats must drop their inward-looking mindset and tackle the growth problem immediately.
	My constituents in Leicester, East need the Lisbon agenda to succeed. So many businesses in Leicester trade with the rest of Europe, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer noted when he recently visited the city. The main problem that they experience is the over-regulated way in which some other EU countries operate. More jobs will be created in Leicester if the goals set out in the Lisbon agenda are met. That applies not only to the textile industry, which has been the bedrock of the city, but the new service industries and engineering.
	As a city, we are ideally placed in the heart of England, with major road networks all around us. We can succeed if the economic climate is right in Europe and we can become a powerhouse of financial prosperity. We are already a Premiership city as far as trade is concerned. Although the Foxes have left the Premiership, they will be back next season, following their splendid victory over the Minister for Europe's football team on Saturday.
	As hon. Members know, in addition to the mid-term review, the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Wim Kok, is heading a high-level group, which has been commissioned to carry out an independent review of the achievements on the Lisbon agenda so far. The decision to set up that group was made by the European Council in March 2003. The high-level group is composed of several highly qualified individuals who are able to reflect the views of all stakeholders. Among those represented are Mr. Will Hutton, chief executive of the Work Foundation, and Mr. Naill Fitzgerald, chairman of Unilever. The remit of that high level group is to make proposals to the Commission to give new stimulus to the Lisbon strategy and improve delivery.
	The report is due to be presented to the Commission by November 2004, and will identify the measures that have been taken so far in the member states' economies to achieve the Lisbon objectives and targets.
	One of the key factors in achieving the goals set out in the Lisbon agenda and creating the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world is accessibility to broadband. The online newspaper, euobserver.com, recently reported that the new member states are set to overtake the old EU 15 in broadband internet penetration rates by 2010. They are set for a rapid catching-up process that could see them forging ahead in the next few years. This is the enthusiasm and willingness on which the whole of the EU must build. All member states must be equally excited about strengthening their own standing, and thereby that of the whole EU. Equal commitment from the individual member states is the only recipe for success in the long term.
	The enlargement of the European Union, increasing the number of member states from 15 to 25, was an extraordinary success, and Europe is now set to go forward in building on unity, strength and co-operation. A union of 25 member states has the possibility and capability to be a strong—indeed, the strongest—player in the world arena, but it needs structure and leadership in order to build on its strengths. The unique combination of diverse skills and cultural richness that defines Europe gives it every opportunity to achieve the goals that have been set out.
	In just 33 days, on 1 November, the new President of the European Commission will start his term of office, and he has given a clear indication that he wants his Commission to be strong and united. Mr Barosso has stated that he intends to boost the Lisbon agenda and has promised that economic reforms will be at the heart of his five-year tenure. He will chair a group of Commissioners who will seek to enhance the reform process and give new impetus to Europe's economy. He has said:
	"The goal of becoming the most competitive economy in the world is one we can achieve, and we should not feel discouraged".

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue that has to be tackled by the Commission and the European Council is the fact that so many nations agree to the directives that make up the Lisbon agenda but fail to transpose them into their own national law? My understanding is that, according to a report to the European Council produced in the spring, two northern European countries, France and Germany, were at the bottom of the league table in that regard, along with Greece.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That area needs to be looked at if we are to make the progress on the Lisbon agenda that I have asked for, and I hope that the new Commission will ensure that that happens. Given the quality of the people who have been appointed to it, I think that it can be achieved. I want to congratulate Peter Mandelson on his appointment as the EU Commissioner for the United Kingdom, with responsibility for the trade portfolio. Both he and the Spanish Commissioner will play an important part in ensuring that this agenda is furthered.
	The EU is falling further behind the United States in terms of gross domestic product per head, and the growth has been below the target of 3 per cent. More labour needs to be employed more productively in the member states to generate growth. This requires an increase in both the employment rate and in investment which can only come about if we start taking the structural reforms seriously by relocating resources from declining to growing sectors. We have to give fiscal and structural policy a chance to put Europe back on the path of sustainable growth.
	The responsibility for the success of the Lisbon agenda lies with all member states and their willingness to implement the targets. The Commission has few powers on national employment laws, social welfare legislation, tax rates and education and research policies, or any other tools to enhance EU competitiveness. The role of the Commission, therefore, is to assist the national Governments in finding the right policies and setting a framework for economic reform.
	Intrinsically linked to the development of the economic union is the development of the political union. At the Brussels summit on 18 June, all member states agreed to the wording and contents of the draft treaty of the European Union. The ratification of that treaty is a unique development in the relationship of the member states. The EU constitution will finally give Europe stability and strength, after two decades of constant negotiating of new treaties. For all the reasons put out by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, it will consolidate the treaties that have gone before. In Britain, this means winning the referendum on the constitution over the next few months.
	My view is that we are not lacking the political will to put our country at the heart of Europe. That has been the Government's agenda since 1997. What we need to do is to ensure that that political will is understood by the British people. That means that all Ministers must heed the words of the Prime Minister by making the positive case for Europe, so that people can form their opinions on the basis of what their elected leaders say. And the Government must explain precisely what they intend to do.
	We have great challenges ahead, but Europe is the reality in which we live and work, and Britain needs strong leadership and guidance in the important period that lies ahead. Next year will be crucial: we will take over the presidency of the European Union, and in July we will host the G8 summit in Scotland. That will put Britain at the centre of attention and action, and many countries in the EU will look to Britain for guidance.
	To remain a strong international player, Britain must adopt the constitution, implement the euro, and look to its partners in the G8 to work towards sustainable development and fair trade. I call on the Government to go out and make that case for Europe. I know that the Minister for Europe and the Financial Secretary will do so in the months that lie ahead.
	As the Chancellor has said, there must be a speedier implementation of EU agreements and policy making at national level to create sustainable growth and more and better jobs. Higher employment rates are critical to achieving growth and to further social inclusion. On Lisbon, it must be our Government, who are so much in the forefront of pursuing the reform agenda through the excellent work of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and the Minister for Europe, who hold Europe to account. It is our agenda: let us make it work for the people of Britain and for all of Europe.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on securing this debate, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks. I welcome the early opportunity that he has provided for me to respond to the issues that he has raised.
	We are strong advocates, as my hon. Friend said, of economic reform in Europe. Europe can only meet the challenges of globalisation by increasing the pace of reform. It has not been quick enough to date, as he has rightly pointed out. To realise the gains of globalisation, Europe needs to become more flexible, more open and more outward-looking.
	In the past three years, cumulative economic growth has been 3 per cent. in Europe but 5.5 per cent. in the US and 6 per cent. in the UK. Living standards in Europe are a third lower than in the US. Eighteen million people in the European Union are out of work. US productivity is more than 14 per cent. higher. We need to speed up the pace of reform.
	We are very pleased that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, Wim Kok is chairing the high-level group on the mid-term review of Lisbon. We want to see that deliver a step change in the pace of reform. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published the UK submission to Wim Kok's group, setting out proposals for sharpening the focus of the Lisbon programme and increasing the incentives for reform.
	At this weekend's European Finance Ministers meeting in the Netherlands, there was unanimity that the Lisbon programme is getting more important, not less. The challenges of globalisation are coming faster—developing countries accounted for 5 per cent. of world manufacturing exports a few years ago, and will soon account for nearly 50 per cent. I was in China last week, and saw something of the pace of development there.
	The challenge for Europe is to combine economic growth while retaining the priority on social inclusion that sets us apart from the United States. Raising employment is the critical link that will allow us to achieve that balance. As Wim Kok said at the weekend, there is no option of economic security without change. We all need to make labour markets more flexible and adaptable, and reform our tax and benefit system so that it pays to have a job.
	The Lisbon programme has been expanded over the past few years, diluting its original aims. The International Monetary Fund suggests that there are now 102 Lisbon benchmarks. We need to prioritise. We need a renewed focus on the objective: long-term growth, through increased employment and productivity.
	We need to benchmark member states' performance. We should introduce annual Lisbon score cards at spring council meetings to rank members states' progress with economic reform, and enable Europe's leaders to set out specific plans for reform in the year ahead. We need to do more to sell the benefits of reform to European's citizens, and explain the costs of inaction.
	The goal of long-term growth demands, in our view, progress in five areas as a priority. The first is further regulatory reform, building on the four-presidency initiative of January this year to reduce the burden of new and existing legislation on enterprising and innovative businesses. The second is urgent reform of labour markets, with all member states implementing the November 2003 European Employment Taskforce report. The third is the taking of further steps to create a competitive single market, liberalising services and developing a more effective competition policy. The fourth is promoting innovation and enterprise, improving the regulatory environment, swift agreement on the Community patent and improved access to finance for fast-growing firms. The fifth is trade and investment liberalisation, with EU leadership in world trade negotiations and a stronger transatlantic economic relationship. Let me say a little about each of those.
	Good regulation underpins effective markets. Proportionate, clear rules make it easier to deal with market failures, such as monopolies that raise prices and reduce choice; but badly designed or excessive regulation can have a heavy cost. It can discourage enterprise, markets can be made less dynamic, and competition can be stifled. There is persuasive evidence that regulation in Europe is dragging down growth. In the United Kingdom as much as 50 per cent. of new legislation originates in Brussels, so improving the regulatory climate means taking action at European level. That is why, with the Dutch, Irish and Luxembourg Governments, we launched our four-presidency initiative for regulatory reform, spanning this year and next year. It was endorsed by all 25 Heads of State and Government at the spring European Council. In addition, the Dutch and Irish presidencies have launched a major simplification exercise, requesting priority areas from member states. Some 20 Governments responded over the summer.
	As we look towards the EU presidency, we remain committed both to implementing the measures we have already set out and to developing further proposals to improve regulation in Europe. That is a key pillar of our strategy for economic reform.
	As for labour market reforms, Europe—as my hon. Friend said—is in real danger of missing the 2010 employment targets, particularly the one he mentioned relating to older workers. We cannot rely on smaller nations such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia to do well enough to allow us to achieve our goals; all of us need to reform. Unless we are much more successful in moving people from economic inactivity to productive work, we will not have the work force that we need. It is right to create flexible labour markets, and to equip people to cope with change—through investment in skills and training, through the best transitional help for people moving between jobs, and through policies to make work pay.
	Member states need to act urgently to modernise the public employment services, using active job search to reduce long-term unemployment; to reform tax and benefit systems to tackle the disincentives to taking jobs; to ensure that we make work pay through targeted tax and benefit policies; and to invest in human capital to increase skills and lifelong learning. That approach has been successful in the UK, and needs to be taken up very widely.
	The single market has been a big success story for Europe. It has allowed countries and regions to specialise in their strengths, and allowed companies to consolidate and become more efficient. It promotes the flow of ideas, and strengthens competition. It is estimated that since 1992 the single market has generated an extra £4,000 for every household in the European Union. Costs have fallen, and quality and choice have increased. But substantial barriers remain. Price differences suggest that competition is still not as open and fair as it should be. Too often Governments try to undermine market opening by building up national champions and protecting short-term interests.
	So we have identified a number of priorities for extending the single market. Europe needs to stick to the deadlines and targets that it set itself in sectors such as telecoms and energy, which I know well from my previous work, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Political commitments that everybody signs up to need to be delivered. Moreover, competition policy at every level should be proactive and independent. The European competition authorities should not just respond to cases; they should be proactive in investigating markets and sectors. We need to reduce unnecessary, overly complex regulation, thereby cutting costs to businesses and employees and helping to make markets more open and dynamic. We also need to remove unproductive, old-style industrial subsidies, while allowing innovative approaches to tackling market failure.
	Fourthly, enterprise and innovation are very important drivers of progress. To compete effectively in an integrated global economy, Europe needs to improve its capacity to innovate, and to build an entrepreneurial culture. Some member states stand out as strong performers, but as a whole Europe continues to underperform compared with major international competitors. For example, it lags behind the United States in 10 out of 11 European Commission innovation performance indicators, and rates of entrepreneurial activity are about half those in the US.
	Europe needs to become a more attractive place in which to invest in research and development by improving the regulatory environment and the sustainability of research funding, and by achieving speedy agreement on the Community patent. It needs to continue to improve access to finance for new and fast-growing businesses—those that we need most to generate new jobs and to boost productivity. We have also proposed that the EU introduce a new competition for a city of enterprise, so that, just as we compete to become the capital of culture, we will compete to find the most enterprising town or city in Europe.
	The last of the five areas concerns an outward-looking Europe. Greater external openness to trade and investment reinforces the drivers of productivity and growth. Structural reforms and more open global markets need to be pursued together. We need to turn away from an inward-looking trade bloc model of Europe and instead be outward looking and globally competitive. Concluding a successful and liberalising multilateral trade round is a priority. Following achievement of the World Trade Organisation framework agreement in July, Europe needs to maintain its commitment and flexibility, particularly on agriculture, to make real progress by the next ministerial meeting in December 2005. Protectionism is hurting our economies and those of developing countries. Global income could be boosted by $500 billion a year—two thirds of which would go to developing countries—by a good, liberalising, pro-development conclusion to the Doha round.
	We need to deepen co-operation with the US, which is our biggest trade and investment partner. The EU and the US should work together to eliminate the most difficult behind-the-border barriers, and to reduce the costs for business and consumers arising from duplicated regulatory systems. We welcome the call at June's EU-US summit for the consulting of business and others on the future of EU-US economic co-operation, leading to a road map for enhanced co-operation at next year's summit. The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the economic benefits of transatlantic liberalisation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the US Treasury Secretary have called for will provide an important evidence base for that work.
	Accelerating the pace of economic reform is vital if Europe's economies are to become more flexible, dynamic, competitive and outward looking, and if we are to create a truly global Europe. That requires making progress in dealing with reform of the common agricultural policy. Some progress has been made, but we need a great deal more. Work needs to be done on the EU state aid regime, in respect of which a number of difficulties remain. There is also a good deal of work to be done on the future financing framework. In our view, the current Commission proposals do not meet the demands and challenges that need to be faced.
	We will continue to work with other member states on the priorities that I have set out: further regulatory reform; urgent reform of labour markets; further steps to create a dynamic and competitive single market; promoting innovation and enterprise; and trade and investment liberalisation. I very much welcome my hon. Friend's reminding the House of the importance to us all of making progress on the priorities set out—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.